Planting works in the Southeast region 2026-2027

This tender is generally well-structured and transparent, offering clear requirements and supporting e-procurement, but it has some ambiguities regarding the procedure type and geographical information.

Deadlines are reasonable, CPV is appropriate, and no disputes are reported. The use of ESPD and WTO/GPA compliance are positive. However, the procedure type is vaguely defined ('Type: T (Code: N/A)', 'Procedure: A (Code: N/A)') and the characteristic 'Negotiation Allowed' is inconsistent with a standard 'Open Procurement' procedure, which is stated in Document 8. This ambiguity slightly lowers the score.

The description of the works and duration is clear. Requirements for exclusion, eligibility, technical capability, and financial aspects are well-documented, primarily through the ESPD and RMK's price framework. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 'lowest price receives the maximum score' in Document 6, correcting the automated check's flag. Performance conditions are also clear.

All essential basic information, financial details, and timelines are provided. The duration (2026-2027) is specified, and requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. Location is indicated as 'Kagu piirkonnas' with a map, but a precise NUTS code is missing, which is a minor gap for international bidders. The 'Required: No' status for several critical informational documents (like evaluation criteria, main tender document) is confusing, even if they are meant to be provided by the contracting authority.

Full document access is provided, the estimated value is disclosed, and the submission deadline is reasonable. Evaluation criteria (lowest price) are objective and transparent. The tender supports e-procurement and electronic submission, ensuring equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. The tender being 'Divided into Parts' is a significant positive for promoting competition and SME participation.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. The duration is clear. However, a specific contract start date is not fixed, though flexibility is noted. While documents are attached, a single direct URL for all tender documents isn't explicitly provided (assuming they are accessed via the e-procurement portal). Financing information is limited to the estimated value, without details on funding sources.

Key fields are largely populated, and there are no disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. The main inconsistencies are the vague 'Type' and 'Procedure' codes in basic info conflicting with 'Open Procurement' and 'Negotiation Allowed' in characteristics. However, the automated check's flags for 'Missing evaluation criteria,' 'Missing contract duration,' and 'Missing location info' are largely incorrect based on the detailed document analysis.

The tender explicitly includes 'Green Procurement' characteristics, which is a positive step towards environmental sustainability. However, there is no mention of specific social criteria or an innovation focus. The tender is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.