Supply and maintenance of annual flower seedlings in Jēkabpils city in 2026

This tender is generally well-structured and clear, but its transparency and fairness are diminished by the non-disclosure of the estimated value and potential document access restrictions.

The tender generally appears compliant with standard procedures, clearly defining the type and using appropriate CPV codes. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the non-disclosure of the estimated value is a transparency concern, and the 'Restricted document access' flag, if true, would be a significant legal compliance issue regarding public access to information.

The tender's core description is clear, and requirements are structured across multiple documents, including specific technical and financial proposals. The explicit mention of evaluation criteria in the 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' document summary indicates good clarity on how bids will be assessed. AI-extracted requirements are somewhat high-level, relying heavily on references to other documents.

The tender provides most essential information, including basic details, deadlines, and location. All necessary documents are listed and summarized, indicating comprehensive underlying content. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the precise contract duration is implied rather than explicitly stated, which are notable gaps.

While the tender benefits from an open procedure, reasonable submission deadline, and e-procurement, significant concerns exist regarding fairness. The non-disclosure of the estimated value hinders transparency for potential bidders. Furthermore, the 'Restricted document access' flag, if accurate, poses a substantial barrier to equal access to information, severely impacting fairness.

The tender supports electronic submission, which is a key practical advantage. However, the lack of a specific contract start date and precise duration, along with the non-disclosure of the estimated value, reduces practicality for bidders in terms of planning and financial assessment. The absence of a direct document URL in the provided data is a minor inconvenience.

Most key fields are populated, and the timeline dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the internal contradictions between the automated check results and the explicit tender characteristics (e.g., E-Procurement vs. No e-submission, evaluation criteria present vs. missing) indicate some inconsistency in the provided metadata.

The tender shows no explicit focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, which are increasingly important for modern public procurement. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability objectives into the contract.