Archaeological Survey at Uueturu 1

This tender for archaeological services is generally well-documented and provides essential information, but suffers from critical inconsistencies regarding evaluation criteria and value classification. While practical aspects are covered, there is a complete lack of sustainability considerations.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance with reasonable deadlines, appropriate CPV codes, and no detected disputes. The use of ESPD and e-procurement aligns with EU/national regulations. A minor inconsistency exists with the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag despite the estimated value being clearly stated.

The project description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and well-structured. However, a significant contradiction exists regarding the evaluation criteria, stating 'relative_weighting' while also specifying 'the sole criterion for bids is the offer price'. This ambiguity severely impacts clarity for potential bidders.

The tender is comprehensive, providing all basic information, financial details, timeline, classification, and location. A full set of 8 supporting documents, including technical specifications, draft contract, and price table, ensures thorough documentation.

Fairness is generally good, with full document access, reasonable deadlines, and e-procurement. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the contradiction in evaluation criteria could be perceived as impacting fairness if not clarified, as bidders might be unsure how their proposals will truly be assessed.

The tender is practical, supporting electronic submission and e-procurement via a provided portal URL. The contract duration and estimated value are clearly specified, facilitating bidder planning. The absence of an explicit contract start date is common and does not significantly hinder practicality.

Data consistency is a significant concern due to two major contradictions. The 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicts the visible estimated value, and critically, the evaluation criteria are inconsistently defined as both 'relative_weighting' and 'sole criterion for bids is the offer price'. These inconsistencies can lead to confusion and potential disputes.

The tender shows a complete absence of sustainability considerations. There are no indications of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, nor is it EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.