Reconstruction and construction of Päärdu land improvement system and roads

This tender is generally well-structured and transparent, providing clear requirements and comprehensive documentation for the reconstruction and construction of the Päärdu land improvement system and roads. While strong in clarity, completeness, and fairness, it lacks integration of sustainability criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type clearly as an open procedure, provides a reasonable submission period of 30 days, and uses appropriate CPV codes. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the characteristic 'Negotiation Allowed' for an open procedure is an unusual combination that could lead to ambiguity if not further clarified in the tender documents.

The tender description is highly detailed and unambiguous, clearly outlining the scope of work and location. Requirements, including eligibility, technical capability, and financial aspects, are well-documented and understandable, supported by comprehensive AI-extracted summaries. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% price.

All fundamental information, such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and deadlines, is provided. A comprehensive set of 11 documents, including technical specifications, draft contract, and required submission forms, ensures bidders have all necessary details. Key project documents, though not AI-analyzed due to format, are present.

The tender demonstrates high fairness through full document access, transparent disclosure of the estimated value, and a reasonable 30-day period for bid preparation. Evaluation criteria based solely on price are objective, and e-procurement ensures equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to specific companies.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides a clear opening place URL. The contract start date is specified, and the duration is clearly defined. The availability of a price proposal form (Lisa 1) enhances practicality for bidders.

Most key fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. The primary inconsistency is the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' characteristic conflicting with the explicit '100% total bid cost' stated in Document 5. While Document 5 clarifies the actual method, this initial discrepancy is a minor data entry issue.

The tender does not include any specific criteria related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.