City of Pärnu, Kuldse Kodu Street 5

This tender presents significant legal ambiguities and data inconsistencies, particularly regarding its status as a public procurement despite high value and EU funding. While some aspects are clear, critical information is missing or contradictory, impacting overall quality and fairness.

The tender explicitly states it is not a public procurement under the Public Procurement Act, which is highly problematic for an 8.7M EUR project receiving 50% EU funding. This creates a fundamental legal ambiguity. Furthermore, the CPV code (5867) is invalid, and the procedure codes (Type E, Procedure MS) are non-standard. While it references national procurement law for exclusion grounds, the overall legal framework is contradictory and potentially non-compliant with EU funding requirements.

While specific requirements for bidders are generally clear, there is a notable inconsistency between the 'relative_weighting' mentioned in the characteristics and the 'total cost (100% weighting)' specified in the evaluation criteria document. The ambiguous legal status of the tender also reduces overall clarity regarding applicable rules and oversight.

Most basic information is provided, including title, reference, organization, value, and duration. However, two critical documents, including the contract draft ('Lepingu projekt.rtf'), could not be analyzed, meaning essential details are unavailable. The 'exact region unspecified' for location is a minor omission.

The explicit declaration that this is 'not a public procurement' for an EU-funded project of this magnitude raises significant fairness concerns, as it may imply a lack of full adherence to principles of equal treatment, transparency, and non-discrimination typically required for public funds. While evaluation criteria (lowest price) are transparent, the overall legal ambiguity could undermine fair competition.

The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, which is practical. Financing information and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of a specific contract start date and the inability to analyze the full contract draft (due to unsupported file format) are minor practical drawbacks.

There are multiple significant inconsistencies. The tender's legal status is contradictory (not public procurement vs. referencing Public Procurement Act and using EU funds). The CPV code is invalid. The evaluation criteria description is inconsistent ('relative_weighting' vs. '100% lowest price'). These issues indicate poor data quality and internal coherence.

Despite being an EU-funded project of considerable value, the tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles into a significant construction project.