Development and acquisition of digital tourism products for Preiļi Castle

This tender for digital tourism products for Preili Castle presents a generally well-structured procurement with clear technical requirements and EU funding, but is significantly hampered by critical issues such as restricted document access and the apparent absence of specified evaluation criteria, impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender demonstrates compliance with several legal aspects, including reasonable submission deadlines (30 days), a clearly defined open procedure, and appropriate CPV classification. It is EU-funded and subject to WTO/GPA, implying adherence to broader regulations. However, the flagged "Restricted document access" and "Missing evaluation criteria" are severe legal compliance issues, as they undermine transparency and equal treatment of bidders, which are fundamental principles of public procurement.

The tender's description is clear, and the technical requirements for digital tourism products are specific and well-documented by referring to detailed specifications. Performance conditions are also clearly linked to technical specifications and the contract draft. However, the absence of clearly specified evaluation criteria, as flagged, significantly reduces clarity for bidders regarding how their proposals will be assessed, making it difficult to formulate a competitive bid.

The tender provides all essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and location. Requirements for exclusion, eligibility, technical, and financial aspects are outlined. However, the "Restricted document access" means that while documents exist, they are not fully available to all potential bidders, rendering the tender incomplete from a practical access standpoint. The flagged "Missing evaluation criteria" also represents a significant gap in completeness.

The tender discloses the estimated value and provides a reasonable timeframe for bid preparation, and the technical requirements appear generic enough to avoid tailoring. E-procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. Nevertheless, the "Restricted document access" creates an unfair advantage or disadvantage, and the flagged "Missing evaluation criteria" makes the evaluation process opaque and potentially subjective, severely compromising the fairness and transparency of the competition.

The tender supports e-procurement and clearly specifies the contract duration and financing source, which are practical advantages. However, the "Restricted document access" implies a lack of easily accessible public URLs for all necessary documents, posing a practical hurdle for bidders. The absence of a specific contract start date also introduces a minor element of uncertainty.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there are direct contradictions between the "PROCUREMENT CHARACTERISTICS" stating "E-Procurement" and the "AUTOMATED CHECK RESULTS" flagging "No e-submission". A more significant inconsistency lies between the "Issues/Flags" and "AUTOMATED CHECK RESULTS" stating "No evaluation criteria specified" and the content summary of Document 3 mentioning "evaluation methodology". These inconsistencies can cause confusion for bidders.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher general standards, and the subject matter of developing digital tourism products inherently involves innovation. However, the automated checks explicitly flag the absence of green procurement and social criteria. While the project itself is innovative, the tender does not actively promote broader sustainability aspects through specific requirements.