Construction of Hansa Hake OÜ production and warehouse building

This tender for a production and warehouse building construction demonstrates good clarity in its requirements and fair access, but suffers from significant data inconsistencies, a missing contract duration, and a complete lack of sustainability criteria. The conditional nature of the contract on PRIA support adds an element of uncertainty.

Deadlines are reasonable, and mandatory exclusion grounds are specified. However, the procedure type and code are vague, there's a contradiction with 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the value being disclosed, and the CPV code '5867' is non-standard. The contract being conditional on PRIA support is a legal aspect that needs careful handling.

The project description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear. Technical specifications and evaluation criteria (100% cost) are well-documented. A notable inconsistency exists between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in characteristics and the explicit 'cost is the sole evaluation criterion (100%)' in the AI summary and Document 4, which could cause initial confusion.

Basic information, deadlines, and estimated value are provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the contract duration is explicitly missing, which is a significant omission for a construction project. Crucial documents like the 'Tootmis- ja laohoone ehitusprojekt' (.zip) and 'Hinnapakkumise vorm' (.xls) were not analyzed, preventing a full assessment of their content.

The tender supports electronic submission, and the estimated value is disclosed. Deadlines are reasonable, and the evaluation criterion (100% cost) is objective and transparent. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. Full document access is assumed.

Electronic submission is supported. However, the missing contract duration makes planning difficult for bidders. The contract signing being conditional on PRIA support introduces uncertainty regarding the project's commencement, impacting practical planning.

Several inconsistencies are present: 'Estimated Value: 400,000.00 EUR' contradicts 'Value Classified: Yes'. 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' contradicts 'cost is the sole evaluation criterion (100%)'. The 'Type' and 'Procedure' codes are marked as N/A, indicating incomplete data.

The tender does not include any specific criteria related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. While PRIA support often implies EU funding, the tender itself does not reflect higher sustainability standards in its requirements.