Renovation of the facade of Cēsis customer service center building

This tender documentation exhibits significant deficiencies in transparency and equal treatment due to undisclosed estimated value and restricted document access. The absence or unclear specification of evaluation criteria is also a major concern.

The tender defines the procedure and CPV code correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the undisclosed estimated value and restricted document access are significant transparency issues that could challenge compliance with equal treatment principles. The flagged 'missing evaluation criteria' also raises concerns about adherence to fair process regulations.

The project description is clear, and the presence of detailed technical specifications and architectural drawings is positive. However, the explicit flag of 'No evaluation criteria specified' creates significant ambiguity for bidders. The generic nature of AI-extracted requirements and restricted document access further hinder a comprehensive understanding of the tender's expectations.

Basic tender information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and critical evaluation criteria are flagged as missing or unspecified. Furthermore, 'Restricted document access' means that even if documents exist, they are not fully available, impacting the overall completeness from a bidder's perspective.

Fairness is significantly compromised by 'Restricted document access' and the 'Value not disclosed,' which prevent all potential bidders from having equal information. The flagged 'No evaluation criteria specified' further undermines transparency and objectivity in the evaluation process. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access to the submission mechanism.

The tender specifies contract duration, but lacks a clear contract start date and financing information (estimated value). A major practical concern is the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being a characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag, which could create confusion and hinder efficient participation. Restricted document access also adds practical hurdles.

While dates are logical and there are no disputes, several critical inconsistencies and omissions are present. These include the undisclosed estimated value, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission,' and the discrepancy regarding the specification of evaluation criteria. The 'Restricted document access' also conflicts with the general availability of documents.

The tender explicitly lacks any identified green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This indicates a complete absence of sustainability considerations in the procurement process.