Procurement of Foodstuffs for the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences Väike-Maarja Training Centre

This tender for foodstuffs for the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences is generally well-structured with clear documentation and fair evaluation criteria, though it exhibits minor legal and completeness issues.

The tender utilizes an ESPD and appears to follow national procurement frameworks. However, the CPV code '671' is incorrect and overly broad, and the procedure type 'A' is vaguely defined, lacking explicit detail on the specific procurement procedure.

The tender description is clear, and the requirements are well-documented across multiple attached files, including specific evaluation criteria (lowest price by parts) and technical specifications. The AI-extracted requirements are minimal, but the provided document summaries indicate comprehensive details are available.

Basic information, deadlines, and estimated value are provided, and all relevant documents are attached. However, the contract duration is not explicitly stated in the basic information (only tender validity is given), and the NUTS code is missing. While the location is mentioned in the description, a formal NUTS code would enhance completeness.

The tender promotes fairness through disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, objective evaluation criteria (lowest price by parts), and the use of e-procurement. The division into parts further encourages broader participation, and there is no indication of requirements being tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, and a URL for document access is provided. However, the contract start date and specific financing information are not explicitly available in the basic tender details, which could impact practical planning for bidders.

Key fields are mostly populated, and there are no disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. However, there are inconsistencies such as 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicting the disclosed estimated value, and the automated check incorrectly flagging 'No evaluation criteria specified' when Document 4 clearly outlines them. The CPV code is also inconsistent with standard formats.

The tender lacks any explicit mention or criteria related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.