Architectural Competition for Tallinn University's Identity and the Street Space in front of the University on Narva Road

This tender for an architectural competition is generally well-structured and clear, providing comprehensive documentation for participants. While strong in clarity and fairness, it could improve on completeness regarding contract specifics and explicitly integrating sustainability criteria.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance with reasonable deadlines for an architectural competition, a clearly defined procedure type ('Ideekonkurss'), and an appropriate CPV code. The inclusion of the 'or equivalent' clause and reference to ESPD are positive. A minor ambiguity exists regarding the 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside the stated estimated value of 100,000 EUR.

The tender's objectives are clearly articulated, and the requirements, including eligibility and technical specifications, are well-documented through the competition rules and task description. The evaluation criterion, 100% quality of the concept design, is explicitly stated and unambiguous for this type of competition.

Most essential information, such as title, organization, reference, and deadlines, is provided. A comprehensive set of 10 documents supports the tender. However, the NUTS code is missing, and there is no explicit contract duration or more precise location information beyond the street name and university.

The tender promotes fairness through reasonable submission deadlines, the use of e-procurement, and the inclusion of the 'or equivalent' clause for technical specifications. The absence of specific financial requirements (e.g., minimum turnover) enhances accessibility for a broader range of participants. Evaluation criteria are transparent for a design competition, and there is no indication of tailoring to a specific company.

Electronic submission is supported, which is a significant practical advantage. However, the tender lacks a clear contract start date and explicit duration. While the estimated value is provided, specific financing information (e.g., EU funding) is not detailed.

The tender exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and no detected disputes or suspensions. Key fields are mostly populated, though minor gaps like the NUTS code and the slight ambiguity around 'Value Classified' are present.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria, or a specific innovation focus as stated requirements or evaluation factors. While architectural design can implicitly address these, their explicit inclusion would significantly enhance the tender's sustainability profile.