Skip to main content
Looking to bid on government tenders? See our TaaS tender preparation service
Tenders

Preparation of the main project for Märjamaa waste station

Open
Deadline
3 days left
April 07, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Services
Reference
306980
Value
€45,000
Location
Estonia
Published
March 26, 2026
CPV Code
Evaluation Criteria
Total bid price100%
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 26, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 31, 2026

Submission Deadline

April 07, 2026

Tender Opening

April 06, 2026

Win ProbabilityPRO
🔒
Upgrade to Professional
See your estimated win probability based on historical data.
Upgrade to Professional →
Buyer IntelligencePRO
🔒
Unlock Buyer Intelligence
See spending patterns, preferred procedures, and more.
Upgrade to Professional →
Sector InsightsPRO
🔒
Unlock Sector Insights
See average winning prices, competition levels, and market trends.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
€45,000
Duration
6 months
Location
Estonia
Type
Services
75
Quality Score/100
Good
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€71,415
Avg. Bids
4.8
Competition
Medium
SME Winners
99%
2,006 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

The aim of the procurement is to find a designer for the construction of a waste station in Märjamaa municipality, Orgita village, on the land owned by the Waste Centre (KÜ 50301:001:0170).
EU FundedElectronic Submission

Run Risk Analysis

Identify potential risks, inconsistencies, and red flags across all tender documents. Get a detailed risk report with severity levels and mitigation recommendations.

Login

Win Strategy

AI-powered analysis of this tender's requirements, opportunities, and challenges. Get strategic insights to maximize your win probability.

60%
Estimated Win ProbabilityModerate Fit

This tender is a price-driven opportunity focused on the preparation of a main project for a waste station. Success hinges on a highly competitive bid price, supported by demonstrable experience in similar projects and qualified personnel. While social value and innovation are not explicit criteria, demonstrating efficiency and a clear understanding of the technical requirements will be crucial.

Key Winning Messages

The most cost-effective and technically sound solution for Märjamaa's waste station project.

Proven expertise in delivering essential infrastructure projects on time and within budget.

Key Opportunities
Sole reliance on price for evaluation offers a clear path to winning for a low-cost provider.
The defined scope (studies, approvals, permits, supervision) allows for precise cost estimation and resource allocation.
The relatively low estimated value suggests a project manageable by smaller, agile firms who can offer competitive pricing.
Key Challenges
Intense price competition due to the 100% price evaluation criterion.

Conduct thorough cost analysis to identify all potential cost savings without compromising quality. Explore efficient project delivery methodologies and leverage existing templates or software for faster design processes. Consider partnerships for specific tasks if it reduces overall cost.

Demonstrating sufficient prior experience in 'main projects' if the bidder's portfolio is diverse.

Clearly highlight and quantify relevant past projects that align with the scope of a waste station's main project. Emphasize the complexity and scale of these projects, even if they were not explicitly for waste management facilities, as long as they involved similar design and approval processes.

Ideal Bidder Profile
A small to medium-sized architectural or engineering firm with a proven track record in designing waste management facilities or similar industrial infrastructure projects. They must possess a lean operational structure allowing for a highly competitive pricing strategy, coupled with a team of experienced engineers and architects capable of delivering the full scope of services efficiently.
Key Requirements
Previous experience in preparing main projects.
Appropriately qualified key personnel.
Absence of mandatory exclusion grounds.
Total bid price (100% evaluation criterion).
Studies, approvals, permit applications, and author's supervision.
Key Discriminators
A highly optimized and lean project delivery methodology that translates directly into a lower bid price.
A clear demonstration of efficiency and speed in obtaining necessary permits and approvals based on past experience.
Social Value Opportunities
While not explicitly required, consider a brief statement on commitment to local employment during the author's supervision phase or the use of local suppliers for any minor on-site support, if feasible and cost-neutral.
Bid Focus Areas
Total bid price100.0%

Achieve the absolute lowest possible price while ensuring all mandatory requirements are met. This requires meticulous cost breakdown, efficient resource planning, and potentially accepting a lower profit margin. Leverage any economies of scale or pre-existing design elements.

Recommendations6
Aggressively Price the Bid
CriticalHigh effort

Given the 100% weight on price, the primary focus must be on submitting the lowest possible bid that is still profitable and meets all requirements. Conduct a detailed cost analysis to identify all areas for optimization.

Directly determines the winning score.
Prove Relevant Project Experience
CriticalMed effort

Clearly articulate and provide evidence of previous experience in preparing 'main projects', especially those involving industrial facilities, infrastructure, or complex permitting processes. Quantify the scope and complexity of these past projects.

Meets eligibility criteria and builds confidence in capability.
Highlight Qualified Key Personnel
CriticalMed effort

Present CVs and qualifications of key personnel that demonstrate their expertise in architectural design, engineering, and navigating approval processes for similar projects. Emphasize their experience relevant to waste management infrastructure if possible.

Meets eligibility criteria and demonstrates technical competence.
Thoroughly Address Exclusion Grounds
HighLow effort

Ensure all mandatory exclusion grounds are meticulously reviewed and confirmed as absent. Provide clear and unambiguous confirmations as required by the tender documents.

Prevents disqualification.
Clarify Trade Secret Explanations
HighLow effort

Prepare clear and concise explanations regarding any trade secrets, ensuring they do not hinder the evaluation of the bid or reveal proprietary information unnecessarily.

Meets submission requirements and avoids potential issues.
Optimize Submission Format and Cost Structure
MediumLow effort

Adhere strictly to the specified submission format and cost structure. Any deviation could lead to disqualification or a less favorable evaluation.

Ensures compliance and proper evaluation.
Competitive Positioning
Position the bid as the most efficient and cost-effective solution by highlighting streamlined processes and experienced personnel capable of delivering the project with minimal overhead. Emphasize a 'no-frills' approach that directly benefits the contracting authority through significant cost savings.

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

9 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (4)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (2)
Technical (1)
Financial (1)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS4
--Bidders must provide explanations regarding trade secrets.
--Bidders must confirm acceptance of the terms.
--Bidders must agree to the submission format and cost structure.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--Bidders must prove they do not have exclusion grounds.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS2
--Bidders must have previous experience in preparing main projects.
--Bidders must have appropriately qualified key personnel.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--The project includes studies, approvals, permit applications, and author's supervision during construction.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS1
--The total cost of the bid is the sole evaluation criterion, with the lowest price receiving maximum points.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

5 documents available with AI summaries

VastavustingimusedPDF
306980_vastavustingimused.pdf -- 6.5 KB

The bidder must provide explanations regarding trade secrets, confirm acceptance of terms, agree to the submission format and cost structure, and provide proof of equivalence if necessary.

Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajadPDF
306980_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf -- 2.8 KB

The total bid price is the sole evaluation criterion, where the lowest price receives maximum points.

Kõrvaldamise alused ja kvalifitseerimistingimusedPDF
306980_korvaldamise_alused_ja_kvalifitseerimi... -- 6.8 KB

Bidders must confirm the absence of exclusion grounds, demonstrate prior experience in preparing main project designs, and possess qualified key personnel.

Tehniline kirjeldusDOC
Lisa 1 Tehniline kirjeldus (Jäätmejaama põhip... -- 41.2 KB

The contracting authority seeks a designer to prepare the main project for the Märjamaa waste station, including studies, approvals, permit applications, and author supervision during construction.

hankelepingu olulised tingimusedDOC
Lisa 2 Töövõtulepingu projekt (Jäätmejaama põ... -- 35.3 KB

The essential terms of the procurement contract outline the object of the contract for the preparation of the main project and author's supervision for the Märjamaa waste station, the obligations of the parties, and the integral parts of the contract.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for the design of a waste station in Märjamaa is generally well-structured, with clear requirements and a straightforward evaluation process. However, it lacks explicit sustainability considerations and could improve on the accessibility of all tender documents.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with general legal requirements, including a clear procedure and CPV code. Deadlines are reasonable for the scope. No disputes are noted. The procedure type (LM) suggests a negotiated procedure, which is permissible.

Clarity80/100

The description of the objective is clear, and the requirements for exclusion grounds, eligibility, and technical capabilities are well-documented. The evaluation criteria are explicitly stated.

Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including estimated value, duration, and deadlines. However, the status '11' is unclear without context, and the availability of all 5 documents is implied but not explicitly confirmed as fully accessible or attached in a way that guarantees immediate download for all potential bidders.

Status code '11' requires clarification.
Fairness85/100

The tender is fair, with the value disclosed and objective criteria (lowest price). E-submission and e-procurement are utilized. The requirements for previous experience and qualified personnel are standard and not overly tailored to specific companies.

Practicality65/100

E-submission and e-procurement are positive. The contract duration is specified. However, information regarding financing is not explicitly detailed, and the contract start date is not provided, which can impact planning for bidders.

Financing information is not explicitly detailed.
Contract start date is not provided.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated. Dates are logical, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes.

Sustainability50/100

The tender is marked as EU Funded, which is a positive aspect. However, there are no explicit mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the tender description or requirements.

Lack of explicit green procurement criteria.
Absence of social responsibility considerations.

Strengths

Clear objective and scope of work.
Objective evaluation criterion (lowest price).
Use of e-procurement and electronic submission.
Reasonable deadlines and disclosed value.

Concerns

Lack of explicit sustainability criteria (green, social, innovation).
Missing contract start date and detailed financing information.
Ambiguity of status code '11'.

Recommendations

1. Incorporate specific sustainability criteria (e.g., waste management practices, use of sustainable materials) into the technical requirements or evaluation.
2. Provide the expected contract start date and more detailed information on financing sources.
3. Clarify the meaning of the status code '11' for better transparency.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

New Service

Want us to handle this tender?

Our procurement experts prepare everything. Proven to work — you review, approve, and submit.

~1hYour time only
80%+80%+
$0Upfront
See full comparison
Without TaaSWith TaaS
40-80 hrs
Preparation time
~1 hr
Your time only
15-25%
Average win rate
80%+
Win rate
Risk of errors
Manual review
Expert QA
Compliance check
You do all
Handle everything
We do all
End-to-end service
Let's Win This Tender
Pay only when you win · 400+ companies trust us
Or do it yourself

Add to Pipeline