Foodstuffs for the Ida-Viru department of Viljandi Hospital's care and rehabilitation center

This tender for food supply to Viljandi Hospital's Ida-Viru department is generally well-structured with clear requirements and an objective evaluation process. However, it exhibits some gaps in completeness, notably missing contract duration and a precise location code, and lacks explicit sustainability considerations.

The tender generally complies with national procurement regulations, referencing the Public Procurement Act. Deadlines are reasonable, and the procedure type is defined. However, the CPV code appears too narrow for the scope of foodstuffs required, and the NUTS code is missing, which are minor compliance issues.

The tender description is clear, and requirements for exclusion, eligibility, technical capability, and financial aspects are well-documented and understandable. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% price for each product category, contradicting the automated check's 'missing evaluation criteria' flag.

Basic information, deadlines, and estimated value are provided. All necessary documents for bid submission are attached. However, the contract duration is not explicitly stated, and while the delivery location is specified as 'Ida-Viru osakonnale', a precise NUTS code is missing, impacting full completeness.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, reasonable submission deadlines, and objective, transparent evaluation criteria (100% price). Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, ensuring equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, enhancing practicality for bidders. However, the absence of a clear contract start date and duration makes it challenging for potential suppliers to plan and commit effectively. Financing information is limited to the estimated value.

Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include the narrow CPV code for the tender's scope and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag despite the value being visible.

The tender does not explicitly include criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. There is no indication of EU funding, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations.