Võrumaa County, Rõuge Parish, reconstruction of Ruusmäe-Järvemäe medium voltage line (IP8416)

This tender provides a solid foundation with clear basic information and specific technical requirements, but a critical contradiction in evaluation criteria significantly impacts clarity, fairness, and data consistency. Key project documents were not analyzed, and explicit sustainability considerations are absent.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, including reasonable deadlines and defined procedures. However, the conflicting statements regarding evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. lowest price) introduce a legal ambiguity that could lead to disputes.

While the project description and most requirements are clear, the fundamental contradiction in the stated evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. lowest price) creates significant ambiguity for bidders, making it unclear how bids will actually be assessed.

Basic information, timelines, and financial details are well-defined. However, the AI analysis could not process critical documents like the project plan (.zip), base documents (.zip), and cost table (.xls), which are essential for a full understanding of the tender's scope and requirements.

The tender generally promotes fairness through disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, and e-procurement. Qualification requirements are appropriate and not overly tailored. However, the conflicting evaluation criteria undermine transparency and could lead to perceptions of unfairness in the assessment process.

The tender supports electronic submission, provides clear financing terms, and specifies a contract start date and work duration, making it practical for bidders to prepare and submit proposals. Performance conditions are also clearly linked via URLs.

A major inconsistency exists between the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' stated in the basic information and Document 1, which specifies 'the sole evaluation criterion for bids is the total bid cost'. This fundamental contradiction is a significant flaw.

The tender is noted as EU Funded, which often implies higher standards, but it lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles.