Harju County, Saue Rural Municipality, Ruila and Hingu villages, connection of electric vehicle charging infrastructure to the electricity grid on Helina property (LC1124)

This tender is generally well-structured with clear descriptions and financial terms. However, the qualification requirements, particularly the need for personnel registered in Elektrilevi's partner portal and the cumulative experience requirement, raise significant concerns about fairness and potential restriction of competition for a small-value contract.

Deadlines are reasonable (8 days) and the procedure type and CPV codes are clearly defined. There is a minor inconsistency with 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the value being explicitly stated. The qualification requirements, while not illegal, could be considered restrictive for a small procurement.

The tender description, requirements, evaluation criteria (lowest price), and performance conditions are generally clear and well-documented. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and understandable.

Basic information, deadlines, value, duration, and location are all specified. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined based on the provided summaries. However, the inability to analyze key attached documents (e.g., .zip, .xls files for project details and cost tables) prevents a full assessment of the completeness of the entire tender package.

The requirement for a company to have personnel registered in Elektrilevi's partner portal with specific rights creates a significant barrier to entry for new companies, potentially limiting competition to existing partners. Additionally, requiring three similar electricity construction contracts within 60 months, with one exceeding 40,000 EUR (excl. VAT) for a 39,000 EUR tender, is a high threshold that could be seen as tailored towards more established entities.

Electronic submission is supported, contract start date is known, and financing information is detailed. However, the lack of direct URLs for all tender documents (though listed) and the restrictive partner portal requirement reduce practicality for new market entrants.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no detected disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency exists between 'Estimated Value: 39,000.00 EUR' and 'Value Classified: Yes', and the evaluation criteria description could be slightly more precise (relative weighting vs. 100% price, though technically consistent).

The tender is EU funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it lacks explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, which are increasingly important for modern public procurement.