Construction of low-current systems for the headquarters and logistics centre of the Raplamaa District of the Estonian Defence League

This tender features comprehensive documentation but suffers from significant contradictions in evaluation criteria and procedural description, which diminishes transparency and fairness. Sustainability aspects are notably absent.

The tender generally adheres to standard procurement practices, utilizing ESPD and electronic submission. However, the main legal ambiguity arises from stating 'Negotiation Allowed' for a procedure explicitly identified as 'Type: A' (Open Procedure), which typically precludes negotiation under EU and Estonian public procurement law. This could lead to legal challenges regarding procedural integrity.

While the project description and most requirements are clear, there is a critical contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria. The basic information states 'relative_weighting,' but Document 4 explicitly states bids will be 'evaluated solely based on price.' This fundamental inconsistency creates significant ambiguity for bidders and undermines the clarity of the tender process.

The tender provides a comprehensive set of documents and all essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, description, financial details, and timelines. All necessary forms and draft agreements are included, ensuring bidders have access to the full scope of requirements.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, disclosed value, and mandatory electronic submission. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the contradictory evaluation criteria ('relative_weighting' vs. 'solely based on price') severely impacts transparency and objectivity, potentially disadvantaging bidders who interpret the criteria differently. This inconsistency creates an uneven playing field.

The tender is practical, supporting electronic submission and e-procurement, which streamlines the process for bidders. Key information like duration and estimated value is clearly specified. The provision of a portal URL for opening bids further enhances practicality.

The tender suffers from significant data inconsistencies. The most critical is the direct contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the explicit instruction in Document 4 to evaluate 'solely based on price.' Additionally, allowing 'Negotiation' in an 'Open Procedure' (Type A) is inconsistent with standard procurement definitions. The 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed value is a minor inconsistency.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. There is no indication of EU funding, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to promote broader public policy objectives.