Medicines and Products Used in Dermatology

This tender is generally well-structured and transparent, but it contains significant deficiencies such as an incorrect CPV code and ambiguity regarding contract duration. While many aspects demonstrate good practice, these issues could hinder effective participation and compliance.

The tender largely complies with legal requirements, utilizing ESPD and outlining mandatory exclusion grounds. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the significant inconsistency between the CPV code (Medical equipment) and the tender's subject matter (Dermatological medicines and products) is a notable legal and procedural error.

The tender's description, requirements, and evaluation criteria are clearly articulated, with detailed information provided in referenced documents like 'Juhised pakkujale.pdf' and 'Lisa 2 raamleping.pdf'. The evaluation criterion (100% cost) is explicitly stated, contradicting the automated flag.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and deadlines, is provided. However, the explicit contract duration (beyond bid validity) and specific service delivery location (NUTS code is empty) are not clearly stated in the summary.

The tender demonstrates high fairness through full document access, disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, and objective, transparent evaluation criteria (lowest price). Electronic submission ensures equal access, and requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are well-supported, enhancing practicality. However, the absence of a clear contract start date and duration (beyond bid validity) can create uncertainty for bidders in planning and resource allocation.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, the critical inconsistency between the CPV code (Medical equipment) and the tender's actual subject (Dermatological medicines and products) significantly impacts data consistency.

The tender includes environmental requirements within the draft framework agreement, which is a positive step towards green procurement. However, it lacks explicit social aspects or an innovation focus, and it is not EU funded.