RECONSTRUCTION OF KIHNU SCHOOL BUILDING

This tender for Kihnu School building reconstruction demonstrates good completeness and sustainability focus, but is significantly hampered by critical inconsistencies regarding the procurement procedure type and evaluation criteria, alongside a potentially restrictive mandatory site visit deadline.

The tender exhibits significant legal ambiguity due to the contradiction between being a 'negotiated procedure' and having '100% cost' as the sole evaluation criterion. This procedural inconsistency, coupled with the 'Over Sum Limit: No' for an EU-funded project of 1.1M EUR, raises compliance concerns regarding the appropriate application of procurement regulations.

While individual requirements are generally clear, the overall clarity of the procurement process is compromised by the conflicting information regarding the procedure type ('negotiated procedure' vs. '100% cost' evaluation and 'relative_weighting'). This ambiguity could confuse potential bidders about the actual evaluation methodology.

The tender provides a comprehensive set of basic information, deadlines, financial details, and a large number of supporting documents. Requirements for eligibility, technical capability, financial aspects, and submission are well-defined across various forms and documents.

Fairness is notably impacted by the mandatory site visit requirement, where the registration deadline is only four days before the submission deadline. This tight window could disproportionately restrict participation, especially for bidders requiring travel or extensive preparation. The procedural ambiguity also affects transparency.

Electronic submission and clear contract timelines are practical. However, the mandatory site visit, with its tight registration deadline and the stipulation that questions will not be answered on-site, presents practical challenges for bidders in terms of logistics and information gathering.

The tender suffers from significant data inconsistencies, including conflicting descriptions of the procurement procedure (negotiated vs. 100% cost, relative weighting), contradictory statements on value classification, and an incorrect 'Over Sum Limit' flag for an EU-funded project of this scale.

The tender demonstrates a good commitment to sustainability, explicitly emphasizing energy efficiency, functionality, and durability in the technical description. Furthermore, the inclusion of a subcontractor average salary threshold addresses social aspects, and the EU funding typically implies higher environmental and social standards.