Real estate valuation for the needs of Viļāni Municipality Administration

This tender for real estate valuation services demonstrates good clarity in its requirements and evaluation criteria but is severely hampered by restricted document access, which critically undermines legal compliance, fairness, and overall practicality.

The tender defines an open procedure and provides a reasonable submission period. However, the CPV code appears misclassified (79419000 instead of a real estate valuation specific code), and critically, the 'Restricted document access' flag indicates a significant breach of transparency principles, which is a fundamental requirement for public procurement.

The tender description is clear, and the AI-extracted requirements comprehensively detail exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission criteria. Evaluation criteria (lowest price) are explicitly stated, contradicting the automated check's flag. The division into 11 parts with specific requirement documents for each enhances clarity.

All basic information, financial details, and timelines are provided. The tender includes numerous detailed documents outlining requirements for each of the 11 parts. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag means that while the information exists, it is not fully available to potential bidders, thus making the tender incomplete from a public access perspective.

The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the 'Restricted document access' flag. Without full access to tender documents, bidders cannot adequately prepare proposals, creating an uneven playing field. While the estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable, and evaluation criteria are objective (lowest price), the lack of document access is a critical flaw.

Practicality is negatively affected by the restricted document access, making it difficult for bidders to obtain necessary information. There is also a contradiction between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag, which creates uncertainty regarding the submission method. A specific contract start date is not provided, only duration.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is an inconsistency between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag from automated checks. The CPV code misclassification also represents a data consistency issue in categorization.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.