PROVISION OF ON-DEMAND TRANSPORT SERVICE IN THE PILOT TERRITORIES OF RIGA PLANNING REGION

This tender for on-demand transport services has a clear structure and is EU-funded, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and ambiguities regarding detailed evaluation criteria, impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender defines an open procedure, has a reasonable submission period, and is EU-funded, suggesting adherence to broader regulations. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a serious concern for transparency and legal compliance, potentially hindering fair competition. The CPV code is relevant.

The tender's title and description are clear, and requirements are structured into logical categories. The presence of detailed technical specifications for each part enhances clarity. However, the lack of explicit detail on evaluation criteria in the provided summaries, despite the Nolikums mentioning them, creates ambiguity and is flagged by automated checks.

Basic information, financial details, and timeline are well-populated, and all tender documents are listed and summarized. However, the 'Restricted document access' issue significantly impacts the completeness for potential bidders. The full details of evaluation criteria are also not explicitly provided in the summaries.

The tender discloses its estimated value and indicates e-procurement, promoting equal access. The division into parts can also encourage broader participation. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a critical barrier to fair competition. The lack of transparent and detailed evaluation criteria in the provided summaries further undermines fairness.

Electronic submission is indicated, and the contract duration is clear. However, the absence of a direct public document URL and the 'Restricted document access' significantly impede a bidder's ability to practically engage with the tender. A specific contract start date is also not provided.

Most core data fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there are inconsistencies regarding 'E-Procurement' vs. 'No e-submission' (automated check) and, more critically, the presence and detail of 'evaluation criteria' between the Nolikums summary and automated flags.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, there are no explicit requirements or mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus within the tender documentation provided. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles.