Planting establishment, installation, and maintenance services in Riga

This tender for planting, installation, and maintenance services in Riga provides clear basic information and specifies the lowest price as the award criterion. However, the critical issue of restricted document access significantly undermines fairness, completeness, and legal compliance, posing a substantial barrier to potential bidders.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant legal compliance issue, as it violates transparency and equal treatment principles essential for public procurement.

The tender's title, description, and high-level requirements are clear. The evaluation criterion ('lowest price') is explicitly stated. However, the inability to access the full tender documents prevents a comprehensive assessment of the clarity of detailed requirements and performance conditions.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and deadlines are complete. However, the 'Restricted document access' and one document lacking a content summary indicate a significant deficiency in providing all necessary information to potential bidders.

The estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable, and the 'lowest price' criterion is objective. E-procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a critical flaw that severely compromises fairness by preventing all potential bidders from accessing essential information required to prepare a competitive bid.

Electronic submission is supported, which is a positive aspect for practicality. The duration is clearly specified. However, the lack of a publicly accessible document URL (implied by restricted access) and the unspecified contract start date present practical hurdles for bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency exists between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the automated check's 'No e-submission' flag, but the core data remains consistent.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.