Paikuse Academy of Security Sciences Renovation Works 2026

This tender is generally well-structured and clear, but presents several transparency and fairness concerns, particularly regarding the classification of the estimated value and stringent turnover requirements. Structural ambiguities in document requirements also warrant attention.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and references national procurement law (RHS), including the 'or equivalent' clause for standards. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the assigned CPV code 'Betoonitööd' (Concrete works) is somewhat narrow given the broader scope of repair works described, suggesting a more general or multiple CPV codes might be more accurate.

The description of the repair works is detailed and unambiguous. Requirements are well-documented and structured by type (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, submission). Evaluation criteria are clearly specified as being solely based on the lowest bid price.

All essential basic information, financial details, timeline, location, and requirements are provided. All 11 tender documents are attached and summarized. However, the 'Required: No' designation for critical documents such as 'Hindamiskriteeriumid' (Evaluation Criteria) and 'Tehniline kirjeldus' (Technical Description) is a structural ambiguity that could lead to confusion regarding their mandatory nature for bidder compliance.

While e-procurement is enabled and evaluation criteria are objective, significant fairness concerns exist. The contradiction of disclosing an estimated value while simultaneously marking it as 'classified' undermines transparency. The net turnover requirement (120,000 EUR for each of the last two years against a 67,600 EUR estimated value) is disproportionately high, potentially limiting SME participation. Furthermore, the mandatory, scheduled site visit requirement can create barriers for potential bidders.

Electronic submission is supported, enhancing practicality. However, the contract start date is explicitly stated as 'presumptive' and without legal meaning, introducing uncertainty for planning. The contract duration is not clearly specified in the main overview, requiring bidders to consult the draft contract. No specific financing information beyond the estimated value is provided.

Key fields are generally populated, and dates are logical. However, a direct contradiction exists between the 'Estimated Value: 67,600.00 EUR' and 'Value Classified: Yes'. Additionally, the 'Contract Start' date being 'presumptive' introduces an inconsistency in the certainty of this key timeline element.

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This is a common characteristic for smaller, routine repair works, hence a neutral score.