Support Services and Site Management for Archaeological Excavations

This tender demonstrates good foundational elements with clear basic information and reasonable timelines, but is significantly hampered by a critical contradiction in evaluation criteria and a complete absence of sustainability considerations.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, featuring a clearly defined open procedure, reasonable submission deadlines (29 days), and appropriate CPV codes. The 'Negotiation Allowed' characteristic for an Open Procedure (A) is a minor ambiguity, but not necessarily non-compliant under specific legal conditions.

While the general description and AI-extracted requirements are clear, a major clarity issue arises from the direct contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the characteristics and 'evaluated solely on price' stated in the financial requirements and evaluation criteria document. This fundamental inconsistency can cause significant confusion for bidders.

Most essential information, including basic details, financial value, and timelines, is provided. All listed documents are attached. However, the inability to analyze the content of the 'Tehniline kirjeldus lisadega' (technical specification) due to its zip format means a critical component of the tender's completeness cannot be fully verified.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, disclosed estimated value, reasonable preparation deadlines, and the use of e-procurement. The requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. While the evaluation criteria contradiction impacts clarity, 'solely on price' is inherently objective if consistently applied.

The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, providing a clear opening place URL. The contract duration is specified, and an estimated value is provided. The lack of an explicit contract start date is common and does not significantly hinder practicality.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, the data consistency is severely undermined by the direct and critical contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the explicit instruction that bids will be 'evaluated solely on price'. This is a major inconsistency.

This tender scores very low on sustainability as it lacks any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.