Replacement of interior and exterior doors at Estonia Mine and Narva Quarry

This tender for door replacement works is generally well-structured with clear basic information, but suffers from critical data inconsistencies and accessibility issues for key documents, impacting overall quality and transparency.

The tender generally adheres to standard legal requirements, including clear definition of procedure type and appropriate CPV codes. Mandatory exclusion and qualification grounds are present. The 'Value Classified: Yes' for a disclosed value is a minor transparency anomaly, but for this value, it's unlikely to be a major legal breach.

The tender description and most requirements are clear and well-documented. However, a significant contradiction exists regarding evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. 100% price), which reduces overall clarity. Key documents like the contract project and technical task are in .zip format, preventing AI analysis and potentially hindering immediate review.

Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the inability to analyze the content of critical documents ('Töövõtulepingu projekt' and 'Tehniline ülesanne') due to their .zip format means a full assessment of the tender's completeness regarding detailed scope and contractual terms cannot be made.

The tender supports e-procurement and electronic submission, promoting equal access. Evaluation criteria (100% price) are objective, despite the inconsistency in their description. Requirements for technical capability are standard and do not appear tailored. The mandatory site visit, while common for such works, could pose a minor barrier for some bidders. The 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed value is a minor transparency concern.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. However, the contract start date is not specified, only duration. Financing information is referenced in unanalyzed .zip documents, which reduces immediate accessibility and practicality for bidders.

A significant inconsistency exists between the stated 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the explicit '100% weight' on price in other sections and documents. Additionally, 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the explicit disclosure of the estimated value. These are critical data consistency issues.

The tender does not include any specific green procurement, social, or innovation aspects, nor is it EU funded. This indicates a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.