Tehnokonsult OÜ uue ülevaatuspunkti rajamine Narva-Jõesuu linnas, Olgina alevikus- ehitustööd

This tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies and a lack of clarity, impacting legal compliance and transparency for bidders, despite positive aspects like the inclusion of green and social criteria. Critical information such as CPV codes and evaluation criteria are contradictory or incorrect.

The tender exhibits significant legal compliance issues, primarily due to the incorrect CPV code (5867 instead of a valid 8-digit code) and vague procedure type (MS with N/A code). The contradiction regarding 'Value Classified' and the unusual 'Required: No' for qualification/evaluation documents also raise concerns about adherence to disclosure and procedural clarity.

Clarity is notably compromised by the direct contradiction in evaluation criteria (stated as 'relative_weighting' but specified as 'lowest price' in a document). Furthermore, the contract duration is inconsistently stated as 8 months in performance conditions and 9 months in the timeline. The 'Required: No' for qualification and evaluation documents is also ambiguous.

While most basic information is present, the tender lacks completeness in critical areas. The 'Type' and 'Procedure' codes are marked as N/A, and there are significant inconsistencies in contract duration, evaluation criteria, and the CPV code, which detract from the overall completeness and reliability of the information provided.

The fairness of the tender is impacted by the contradictory evaluation criteria, which creates uncertainty for bidders regarding how their offers will be assessed. While requirements are generally generic, the very tight 7-day window between submission/opening and contract start could pose practical challenges for a thorough evaluation and contract finalization, potentially limiting fair competition.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides financing information, which are practical aspects. However, the inconsistent contract duration (8 vs 9 months) creates planning difficulties. A significant practical concern is the extremely short 7-day period between the submission deadline/opening date and the proposed contract start date, which is highly ambitious for evaluation, negotiation (if allowed), and contract signing.

This tender suffers from severe data inconsistencies across multiple critical fields. Key issues include conflicting contract durations (8 vs 9 months), contradictory evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs lowest price), an incorrect CPV code, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicting the disclosed estimated value. These inconsistencies significantly undermine the reliability of the tender information.

The tender explicitly incorporates green procurement and social criteria, and benefits from EU Just Transition Fund financing, indicating a commitment to sustainability. However, the automated check correctly identified a lack of specific innovation focus, which prevents a higher score in this category.