Procurement of technical maintenance services for low-current systems of objects in the Southern region (2026)

This tender provides a good level of detail but is significantly hampered by a critical inconsistency in evaluation criteria and a mandatory physical site visit requirement that limits accessibility. While legally compliant, these issues reduce overall quality and potential for broad participation.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, including reasonable deadlines and the use of an ESPD. The 'or equivalent' clause for standards is positive. The mandatory site visit with on-site signature is permissible under Estonian law (RHS § 111 lg 6), though it can be restrictive. Minor administrative codes (Type, Procedure N/A) are noted.

The description of services, locations, and general requirements is clear. However, there is a direct and critical contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria: 'relative_weighting' is stated in characteristics, while 'lowest price' is specified in the evaluation document and AI summary. This creates significant ambiguity for bidders.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, value, duration, and specific locations, is provided. All required forms and a draft contract are included. However, the 'General technical description' (Lisa 1) being in an unanalyzed ZIP format is a notable gap in the provided summary, potentially affecting the completeness of accessible information.

The tender discloses the estimated value, enables e-procurement, and includes an 'or equivalent' clause for standards, which are positive for fairness. However, the mandatory site visit with an on-site signature creates a significant logistical barrier, potentially limiting participation from a wider range of bidders, especially international ones. The evaluation criteria inconsistency also reduces transparency.

Electronic submission is supported, and key dates and contract duration are clearly specified. However, the mandatory physical site visit requiring an on-site signature is a substantial practical hurdle for bidders, demanding significant logistical effort and travel, which can deter participation.

The most critical issue is the direct contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the explicit instruction that 'the sole evaluation criterion is the contract cost, with the lowest price receiving the maximum score'. This is a severe inconsistency that could lead to confusion and challenges. Minor inconsistencies include N/A codes for Type and Procedure.

The tender explicitly states 'Green Procurement' as a characteristic, which is a positive aspect. However, there is no mention of specific social criteria or an innovation focus. The tender is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.