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

Conservation of the circular wall of Põltsamaa Castle

Open
Deadline
5 days left
April 09, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Construction
Reference
307769
Value
€40,000
Location
Estonia
Published
March 19, 2026
CPV Code
Evaluation Criteria
Offer price100%
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 19, 2026

Deadline for Questions

April 02, 2026

Submission Deadline

April 09, 2026

Tender Opening

April 09, 2026

Contract Start Date

May 14, 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
€40,000
Duration
Not specified
Location
Estonia
Type
Construction
75
Quality Score/100
Good
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€524,963
Avg. Bids
4.7
Competition
Medium
SME Winners
94%
5,932 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

Conservation of parts of the circular wall of Põltsamaa Castle (conservation of west corner fragments, southeast, southwest wall and northeast wall section).
Electronic 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 for the conservation of Põltsamaa Castle's ring wall is a price-driven opportunity. Success hinges on submitting the absolute lowest compliant bid while demonstrating strong technical capability in historical conservation and ensuring visitor safety. Bidders must meticulously adhere to all submission requirements and leverage their experience to build trust.

Key Winning Messages

The most cost-effective and technically sound solution for preserving Põltsamaa Castle's heritage.

Ensuring the safety and continuity of visitor experience during critical conservation works.

Key Opportunities
Leverage established relationships or efficiencies in stone conservation to drive down costs.
Highlight specialized knowledge of heritage materials and conservation techniques to build confidence despite the price focus.
Demonstrate a proactive and robust visitor safety plan, which can be a subtle differentiator in a price-focused tender.
Key Challenges
Intense price competition due to 100% price evaluation.

Conduct thorough cost analysis, identify all potential cost-saving measures without compromising quality or safety, and aim for the absolute lowest viable price. Explore efficiencies in material sourcing and labor deployment.

Ensuring compliance with all technical and contractual requirements while offering a low price.

Meticulously review 'Tehniline kirjeldus.docx' and 'Vastavustingimused.pdf'. Develop a detailed work plan that integrates cost-efficiency with compliance. Conduct internal reviews to ensure all aspects are covered.

Potential for scope creep or unforeseen issues in heritage conservation impacting budget.

Build a small contingency into the price if feasible, or clearly define the scope of 'emergency situation liquidation' in the bid to manage expectations. Emphasize the thoroughness of the initial assessment in the bid.

Ideal Bidder Profile
A construction company with proven experience in historical building conservation, specifically stone structures. They must possess a strong understanding of heritage materials and techniques, a robust health and safety management system for public sites, and the financial capacity to undertake the project. Efficiency and cost control are paramount.
Key Requirements
Price Offer (Pakkumuse mahutabel.xlsx)
Experience in conservation works of historical buildings/structures
Ability to ensure visitor safety during works
Adherence to Tehniline kirjeldus.docx
Adherence to Vastavustingimused.pdf
Hankepass (ESPD) submission
Key Discriminators
Demonstrated track record of delivering similar heritage conservation projects on time and within budget.
Innovative (though not explicitly required) cost-saving approaches in heritage conservation that do not compromise integrity.
A highly detailed and practical visitor safety plan that exceeds minimum requirements.
Social Value Opportunities
While not explicitly required, consider including a commitment to engage local labor or apprentices for specific tasks, framing it as a contribution to the local community's heritage preservation skills.
Bid Focus Areas
Offer price100.0%

Submit the absolute lowest compliant price. This requires meticulous cost breakdown, efficient resource allocation, and potentially leveraging economies of scale or specialized supplier relationships. Every euro saved directly translates to a higher score.

Recommendations6
Aggressively Price for Lowest Bid
CriticalHigh effort

Given the 100% price evaluation, the primary focus must be on submitting the lowest possible compliant bid. Conduct detailed costings, explore all efficiencies, and ensure the price is competitive enough to win.

Directly impacts the bid's score and win probability.
Master 'Tehniline kirjeldus' and 'Vastavustingimused'
CriticalHigh effort

Thoroughly analyze and ensure full compliance with the technical specifications and contractual terms. Any deviation or omission can lead to disqualification, regardless of price.

Ensures bid compliance and avoids disqualification.
Demonstrate Proven Heritage Conservation Experience
CriticalMed effort

Clearly articulate and provide evidence of past experience in similar historical building/structure conservation works. Highlight specific skills in stone conservation and heritage materials.

Builds credibility and meets a key technical requirement.
Develop a Robust Visitor Safety Plan
CriticalMed effort

Detail a comprehensive plan for ensuring visitor safety during works, referencing the 'TEGEVUSKAVA' and 'Tehniline kirjeldus'. This demonstrates responsibility and operational capability.

Meets a critical technical requirement and builds confidence.
Meticulous Submission Process
HighMed effort

Adhere strictly to all submission requirements, including the specified format for 'Pakkumuse mahutabel.xlsx' and the Hankepass. Double-check all deadlines and document uploads.

Prevents administrative disqualification.
Highlight Efficiency in Heritage Materials
MediumLow effort

If possible, subtly highlight any cost-effective sourcing or application methods for heritage-approved materials, framing it as an efficient approach to preservation.

Can subtly reinforce the value proposition beyond just the lowest price.
Competitive Positioning
Position as the most cost-effective provider of high-quality heritage conservation services, emphasizing efficiency and proven expertise in historical structures. Focus on delivering the required outcome at the lowest possible price point while assuring safety and compliance.

Competitors

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

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

22 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (13)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (2)
Technical (4)
Financial (2)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS13
--Submit a price offer using the provided form ('Pakkumuse mahutabel.xlsx').
--The bid must be submitted by the deadline: 2026-04-09 07:00:00.
--Joint offers are permitted.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--None explicitly stated, but general exclusion grounds may apply based on legal frameworks.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS2
--Must be a legal entity capable of entering into contracts.
--Must not be subject to exclusion grounds.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS4
--Experience in conservation works of historical buildings/structures.
--Ability to execute restoration works according to the provided plan and technical specifications.
--Knowledge and application of appropriate conservation methods and materials.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS2
--Ability to finance the project.
--Bidders must submit a price offer.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

7 documents available with AI summaries

VastavustingimusedPDF
307769_vastavustingimused.pdf -- 4.3 KB

This document outlines compliance conditions regarding joint bids, subcontractor engagement rules, bid submission terms and format, and cost submission requirements for the Põltsamaa Castle ring wall conservation tender.

Pakkumuse esitamise vormXLS
Pakkumuse mahutabel.xlsx -- 10.6 KB

Bidders must submit a price offer for the conservation work of the Põltsamaa Castle ring wall by completing the provided form.

Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajadPDF
307769_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf -- 2.8 KB

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

Hankepass täiendatavate selgitustegaPDF
307769_hankepass_taiendavate_selgitustega.pdf -- 38.0 KB

The tender pass (ESPD) is a self-declaration by the economic operator, serving as initial evidence instead of certificates issued by authorities or third parties, and includes the contracting authority's conditions and expected response formats.

TEGEVUSKAVA RINGMÜÜRI VARISEMISE OHTLIKE PIIRKONDADE AVARIILISE OLUKORRA LIKVIDE...PDF
Restaureerimise tööde kava, Põltsamaa loss-li... -- 3.5 MB

The action plan for liquidating the emergency situation of the Põltsamaa Castle's curtain wall describes the object's condition, the purpose of the work, methodology, and materials to ensure visitor safety and preserve the heritage structure.

Tehniline kirjeldusDOC
Tehniline kirjeldus.docx -- 4.2 MB

The technical specification defines the technical requirements, standards, and quality requirements for the conservation works of the Põltsamaa Castle ring wall, which construction companies must adhere to.

Töövõtulepingu projektDOC
Töövõtulepingu projekt.doc -- 113.5 KB

The draft contract for the conservation of the Põltsamaa castle's ring wall outlines the contract terms and legal framework.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for the conservation of Põltsamaa Castle's curtain wall is generally well-structured, with clear technical requirements and a straightforward evaluation based on the lowest price. However, it lacks explicit sustainability considerations and could improve on the accessibility of certain required documents.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with general legal frameworks for public procurement. Deadlines are reasonable, and the procedure is outlined. The CPV code is provided, and there are no reported disputes. The use of ESPD and Hankepass aligns with standard practices.

Clarity80/100

The description of the works is clear, and technical specifications are provided. The evaluation criterion (lowest price) is explicitly stated. However, the exact format and accessibility of the 'ESPD_v2.0_laiendatud.xml' for AI analysis is unclear, and the 'Vastavustingimused.pdf' and 'Töövõtulepingu projekt.doc' are not summarized, leaving some conditions less transparent.

Lack of summary for 'Vastavustingimused.pdf' and 'Töövõtulepingu projekt.doc'.
Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including estimated value, duration, and contract start date. However, the 'ESPD_v2.0_laiendatud.xml' is not fully analyzed, and the summaries for 'Vastavustingimused.pdf' and 'Töövõtulepingu projekt.doc' are missing, which could impact a bidder's full understanding of all requirements.

Incomplete AI analysis of 'ESPD_v2.0_laiendatud.xml'.
Missing summaries for 'Vastavustingimused.pdf' and 'Töövõtulepingu projekt.doc'.
Fairness85/100

The tender is fair, with full document access (except for the AI-analyzed XML). The estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable, and the evaluation criterion (lowest price) is objective. E-procurement is utilized, and joint offers are permitted, promoting broader participation.

Practicality65/100

E-submission is mandated, and a document URL is implied through the tender platform. The contract start date is specified. However, the financing information is not detailed, and the duration is presented as 'PERIOD' without a specific number of months for the contract itself, only for tender validity.

Lack of specific financing details.
Contract duration not explicitly stated in months/years.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. The dates provided (Reveal, Submission, Opening, Contract Start) are logically sequenced.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is not indicated as EU-funded. This area is underdeveloped.

No explicit mention of green procurement.
No explicit mention of social aspects.

Strengths

Clear technical specifications and description of works.
Objective evaluation criterion (lowest price).
Use of e-procurement and Hankepass for initial proof.
Reasonable deadlines and logical date sequencing.

Concerns

Lack of explicit sustainability criteria (green, social, innovation).
Incomplete AI analysis of ESPD XML and missing summaries for key documents.
Limited detail on financing and contract duration.

Recommendations

1. Incorporate specific sustainability criteria (e.g., use of eco-friendly materials, waste management plans).
2. Provide full summaries for all essential documents and ensure all required file formats are fully analyzable.
3. Clarify financing sources and the exact contract duration.

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