Want tender expert help? See our tender preparation service
Tenders

Hõbelusikate ost

Closed

Submission Deadline Has Passed

This tender's submission deadline has passed and is no longer accepting applications. The information below is kept for reference purposes.

Browse Active Tenders
Deadline
Expired
January 19, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Supplies
Reference
304625
Value
€50,000
Location
Estonia
Published
January 06, 2026
Organization
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

January 06, 2026

Deadline for Questions

January 12, 2026

Submission Deadline

January 19, 2026

Tender Opening

January 19, 2026

Win ProbabilityPRO
🔒
Upgrade to Professional
See your estimated win probability based on historical data.
Upgrade to Professional →
Buyer IntelligencePRO
🔒
Unlock Buyer Intelligence
See spending patterns, preferred procedures, and more.
Upgrade to Professional →
Sector InsightsPRO
🔒
Unlock Sector Insights
See average winning prices, competition levels, and market trends.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
€50,000
Duration
6 months
Location
Estonia
Type
Supplies
69
Quality Score/100
Good
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€71,799
Avg. Bids
2.6
Competition
Low
SME Winners
99%
126 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

Käesoleva riigihanke objektiks on soetada sündivatele linnakodanikele kinkimiseks 550 Tartu vapiga kaunistatud hõbelusikat koos kinkekarbiga.
Electronic Submission

Run Risk Analysis

Identify potential risks, inconsistencies, and red flags across all tender documents. Get a detailed risk report with severity levels and mitigation recommendations.

Login

Win Strategy

Get an AI-powered winning strategy tailored to this tender. Includes win probability score, key opportunities and challenges, recommended bid focus areas, competitive positioning insights, and actionable recommendations to maximize your chances.

Login

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

6 requirements across 4 categories

Submission (3)
Mandatory (1)
Technical (1)
Financial (1)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS3
--The offer must include a design/photo of the silver spoon.
--The offer must include the cost form as per the tender documents.
--Tenderers must submit a confirmation regarding the absence of exclusion grounds specified in § 95 subsection 1 of the Public Procurement Act.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--Tenderers must confirm they do not have any exclusion grounds specified in § 95 subsection 1 of the Public Procurement Act.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--The offer must comply with the technical description of the silver spoons.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS1
--The bid must include the total cost for the procurement of silver spoons.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

4 documents available with AI summaries

VastavustingimusedPDF
304625_vastavustingimused.pdf -- 3.7 KB

The offer must comply with the technical description, include a design/photo of the silver spoon, and the cost form as per the tender documents, allowing the contracting authority to verify compliance.

Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajadPDF
304625_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf -- 2.7 KB

This document specifies that for the silver spoon procurement, the sole evaluation criterion is the total bid cost (100%), with the lowest bid being considered the best.

Kõrvaldamise alused ja kvalifitseerimistingimusedPDF
304625_korvaldamise_alused_ja_kvalifitseerimi... -- 3.2 KB

This document requires tenderers to confirm that they do not have any exclusion grounds specified in § 95 subsection 1 of the Public Procurement Act.

Fail alusdokumendidDOC
Hõbelusikate hange 2026.doc -- 381.5 KB

This document outlines the terms and requirements for the Tartu City Government's 2026 procurement of silver spoons.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

69
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for silver spoons is generally well-structured with clear objectives, but suffers from significant data inconsistencies and some gaps in documentation clarity and completeness.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, referencing national procurement act for exclusion grounds and providing reasonable timelines. However, the 'Required: No' status for essential tender documents (terms and evaluation criteria) could pose a procedural risk if not formally binding.

•Key tender documents (Tender Conditions, Evaluation Criteria) are marked as 'Required: No', which is a procedural concern.
•CPV code 'Handicraft and art supplies' is acceptable but could be more specific for silverware.
Clarity80/100

The procurement object is clearly described. However, there is a direct contradiction regarding evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. 100% cost), and the technical requirements are only referenced without providing the actual description content.

•Contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' and Document 3 stating 'sole evaluation criterion is the total bid cost (100%)'.
•Technical capability requirement refers to a 'technical description' without providing its content in the summaries.
Completeness70/100

Basic information, deadlines, and value are provided. However, the absence of explicit eligibility requirements, the content of the technical description, and the 'Required: No' status for crucial tender documents significantly impact completeness.

•Key tender documents (Tender Conditions, Evaluation Criteria) are marked as 'Required: No'.
•Actual content of the 'technical description' is not provided in the summaries.
Fairness85/100

The tender promotes fairness through electronic submission and clear, objective evaluation criteria (lowest price). Requirements do not appear tailored, and the estimated value is disclosed. The 'Required: No' for key documents is a minor concern for equal access to full information.

•The 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicts the explicit estimated value, creating a minor transparency inconsistency.
•Key tender documents marked as 'Required: No' could imply unequal access to full, formally binding information.
Practicality65/100

Electronic submission is supported, enhancing practicality. However, the absence of a specific contract start date and detailed financing information, along with no explicit document URL, reduces the overall practicality score.

•Contract start date is not specified, only duration.
•Detailed financing information beyond the estimated value is not available.
Data Consistency50/100

This category presents the most significant issues. There are direct contradictions regarding evaluation criteria and the classification of the estimated value. Furthermore, marking essential tender documents as 'Required: No' is a major inconsistency with standard procurement practices.

•Direct contradiction: 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' vs. 'sole evaluation criterion is the total bid cost (100%)'.
•Contradiction: 'Value Classified: Yes' vs. 'Estimated Value: 50,000.00 EUR'.
Sustainability20/100

The tender does not include any specific green procurement, social, or innovation aspects, nor is it EU funded. This is common for simple goods procurement but results in a low score for this criterion.

•No green procurement criteria.
•No social aspects included.

Strengths

Clear description of the procurement object.
Electronic submission and e-procurement enabled.
Estimated value and contract duration are specified.
Evaluation criteria (lowest price) are objective and transparent once clarified.
Mandatory exclusion grounds are referenced.

Concerns

Significant data inconsistencies regarding evaluation criteria and value classification.
Key tender documents are marked as 'Required: No', raising procedural and clarity concerns.
Lack of explicit eligibility requirements and the actual content of the technical description.
Absence of sustainability, social, or innovation criteria.
No specific contract start date or detailed financing information.

Recommendations

1. Clarify and ensure consistency regarding evaluation criteria, updating either the main characteristics or the document content.
2. Correct the 'Required' status for all essential tender documents to 'Yes' to ensure bidders formally acknowledge and adhere to them.
3. Provide the full technical description of the silver spoons to ensure complete clarity for bidders.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes