Adaptation of Tamme School premises

This tender is generally well-structured with essential documents provided, but concerns arise regarding the sole reliance on price for evaluation and the apparent lack of explicit technical capability requirements in the AI summary.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance with reasonable deadlines, a clearly defined procedure type, and appropriate CPV codes. No disputes or suspensions are noted, and mandatory disclosure requirements appear to be met. A minor inconsistency exists between 'relative_weighting' and 'price-only' evaluation, which is likely resolved by price having 100% weight.

The project description is clear, and evaluation criteria are specified as price-only. However, the AI summary explicitly states 'No specific technical capability requirements for the bidder found'. For a construction project, even adaptation, this is a significant clarity gap, as bidders need precise technical expectations.

All basic information, deadlines, value, and location are provided. A comprehensive set of documents, including the construction project plans (zip) and price table (xls), are attached, which is good for completeness, even if AI could not analyze their content. The potential absence of detailed technical capability requirements, as indicated by the AI summary, is a notable gap.

Document access is full, value is disclosed, and deadlines are reasonable. However, evaluating a project for special needs students solely on price may not ensure the best quality or long-term value, potentially disadvantaging bidders focused on quality. The absence of explicit technical capability requirements could also lead to an uneven playing field.

The tender supports electronic submission, provides a clear contract start date, and indicates EU funding. The duration for tender validity is specified, contributing to good practicality.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no detected suspensions or disputes. The minor inconsistency regarding evaluation criteria is the only notable point.

While the project itself addresses a social need (adapting rooms for special needs students), the tender documentation does not include explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria for bidders. Despite being EU funded, these higher standards are not reflected in the tender's specific requirements.