Cadastral Survey for Land Management Procedure (Reinu Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Path)

This tender for cadastral surveying is generally well-structured for a simplified procedure, providing clear technical and eligibility requirements. However, the lack of AI analysis for key documents like the Land Management Plan raises concerns about completeness, and a minor inconsistency exists in the stated evaluation criteria.

The tender generally complies with national procurement regulations, referencing the Public Procurement Act for exclusion grounds. Deadlines are reasonable for a simplified procedure. The CPV code is broad but acceptable. The primary legal concern is the inconsistency between the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic characteristics and the explicit 'sole criterion is the total cost' stated in the evaluation criteria document.

The description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. Technical specifications and performance conditions are well-documented. The main clarity issue stems from the inconsistency in the evaluation criteria, although the specific document clarifies it to be the lowest price.

All basic information, deadlines, value, and location are provided. Requirements and criteria are extensively defined across multiple documents. However, two critical documents, 'Viimsi Vallavalitsuse 13.01.2026 korraldus nr 10' and 'Maakorralduskava', were not analyzed by AI, potentially leaving crucial information inaccessible or unsummarized for bidders relying on the provided content.

The tender appears fair, with full document access (assuming .asice files are generally accessible), disclosed value, and reasonable deadlines. Evaluation criteria, once clarified by the document, are objective (lowest price). E-procurement is enabled. Requirements, such as a valid activity license, are standard and not indicative of tailoring to a specific company. The restriction on subcontractors is a minor limitation but not necessarily unfair.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, enhancing practicality. The duration of work (70 days) is specified. While a direct document URL isn't provided, it's implied by e-procurement. The use of .asice files, while standard in Estonia, might pose minor practical challenges for some bidders if specific software is required for viewing.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no detected disputes or suspensions. The primary inconsistency is the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' field contradicting the explicit 'sole criterion is the total cost' in the evaluation document. However, since the document itself provides clarity, the core tender information is largely consistent.

The tender does not include any specific green procurement, social, or innovation aspects. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. For a technical service of this nature, these aspects are often less emphasized, but their complete absence results in a neutral score.