Reconstruction of Pededzes Street, section from Daugavas Street to Lielā Street, Phase 2

This tender for street reconstruction demonstrates good clarity and comprehensive documentation but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and undisclosed estimated value, raising serious concerns about fairness and legal compliance.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and adheres to reasonable deadlines. There are no reported disputes. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern, potentially hindering transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental principles of public procurement law. The non-disclosure of the estimated value, while not always a direct legal breach depending on thresholds, is a transparency best practice often linked to legal compliance.

The tender's title and description are clear and unambiguous. Requirements for technical capability, financial proposals, exclusion, and eligibility are well-documented across multiple tender documents and summarized effectively by AI. The evaluation criterion ('lowest price') and performance conditions are clearly specified, referring to the technical specification and contract draft.

The tender provides all essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, and location. Key timelines such as submission deadlines and contract duration are specified. A comprehensive set of documents, including technical specifications and a draft contract, are listed. However, the estimated value of the procurement is not disclosed, which is a notable omission. The 'Restricted document access' also implies that while documents are listed, their full availability to all bidders is compromised, affecting the practical completeness from a bidder's perspective.

The tender benefits from an open procedure, clear 'lowest price' evaluation criteria, and the use of e-procurement, which generally promotes equal access. Deadlines for submission are reasonable. However, the critical issue of 'Restricted document access' severely undermines fairness by preventing all potential bidders from having equal access to essential tender documentation. The non-disclosure of the estimated value also reduces transparency, making it harder for bidders to make informed decisions.

The tender supports electronic submission, which enhances practicality for bidders. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the absence of an explicit document URL (or the restriction of access) and the lack of a specified contract start date reduce the overall practicality. Financing information beyond the undisclosed estimated value is also not provided.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there are significant inconsistencies between the automated check results and the provided tender data, specifically regarding 'Missing evaluation criteria' (contradicted by explicit statements) and 'No e-submission' (contradicted by 'E-Procurement' characteristic). The 'Restricted document access' flag also conflicts with 'Documents available' in automated checks, indicating a fundamental data access issue.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement criteria, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability objectives into the procurement process.