Pärnu city, design of buildings at Metsa tn 3 for energy efficiency improvement

This tender for energy efficiency design services is generally well-structured with clear objectives and electronic submission, but suffers from critical inconsistencies in evaluation criteria and a non-standard CPV code, alongside unanalyzed key documents.

The tender clearly defines the open procedure type and provides a reasonable submission period of 17 days, exceeding the minimum requirement. The use of ESPD and electronic submission aligns with EU/national regulations. However, the CPV code "11222" is not a standard 8-digit code, which is a notable classification error and a legal compliance concern. No disputes or suspensions are indicated.

The project description is clear, outlining the objective of energy efficiency design for specific buildings. AI-extracted requirements are also well-articulated. A critical issue, however, is the direct contradiction in the evaluation criteria: the "PROCUREMENT CHARACTERISTICS" section states "relative_weighting," while Document 1 explicitly states "total cost is the sole criterion, and the lowest price receives the maximum points." This ambiguity significantly undermines clarity for potential bidders.

The tender provides all essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location. Deadlines are clearly specified. While 11 documents are attached, the AI analysis was unable to process the content of 5 critical documents (e.g., the energy audit, and several RTF forms for CVs, consents, and powers of attorney). This limits the completeness of the accessible information for a thorough review.

The tender promotes fairness through disclosed value, reasonable deadlines for preparation, and the enablement of electronic submission and e-procurement for equal access. The technical requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The contradiction in evaluation criteria, while a clarity issue, would be fair if "lowest price" is indeed the sole, objective criterion as stated in Document 1.

Electronic submission is fully supported, enhancing practicality for bidders. The contract duration is clearly specified as 31 months. However, the exact contract start date is not explicitly mentioned. The use of RTF forms for key submissions, which were not analyzed, might require bidders to use specific software or convert formats, potentially adding minor practical steps.

The tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies. The CPV code "11222" is inconsistent with standard 8-digit CPV classifications. The evaluation criteria are contradictory ("relative_weighting" vs. "lowest price"). Furthermore, Document 8, described as "Riigihanke alusdokumendid" (Basic procurement documents), is incorrectly categorized as "Type: CV." These inconsistencies can lead to confusion and errors.

The tender demonstrates a strong commitment to environmental sustainability by explicitly focusing on "energiatõhususe parandamiseks" (energy efficiency improvement) and being flagged as "Green Procurement" and "EU Funded" (Modernisation Fund). This aligns with high environmental standards. However, the tender does not explicitly highlight social aspects or an innovation focus beyond the core energy efficiency objective.