Minibus Purchase

This tender for a minibus purchase exhibits significant issues regarding fairness and clarity due to a disproportionately high financial requirement and contradictory evaluation criteria, despite otherwise clear basic information.

The tender generally adheres to legal frameworks, referencing national procurement act for exclusion grounds. However, the financial requirement of 100,000 EUR net turnover for a 40,322 EUR tender raises concerns about proportionality, a key legal principle in public procurement, potentially limiting competition.

While the general description and most requirements are clear, there is a critical contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria. The 'Procurement Characteristics' state 'relative_weighting', but 'Document 3: Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajad' specifies that the 'lowest total cost will be deemed successful'. This fundamental inconsistency creates significant ambiguity for bidders.

Most essential information, including basic details, deadlines, value, and requirements, is provided. However, the ambiguity arising from the contradictory evaluation criteria and the lack of detailed scope for the '2 months' contract duration slightly detract from overall completeness.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the disproportionately high financial requirement (100,000 EUR net turnover for a 40,322 EUR tender). This requirement is likely to exclude smaller, potentially competitive suppliers, thereby limiting competition. The contradiction in evaluation criteria also undermines transparency and equal treatment.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides clear payment terms, which are practical aspects. However, the high financial requirement may deter a broader range of potential bidders, making it less practical for smaller businesses to participate.

The most critical inconsistency lies in the evaluation criteria, where 'relative_weighting' is stated in the characteristics, but 'lowest total cost' is specified in the evaluation document. A minor inconsistency is 'Value Classified: Yes' while the estimated value is clearly disclosed.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This is common for smaller, straightforward purchases but indicates a lack of focus on broader sustainability objectives.