Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.
Login23 requirements across 5 categories
Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis
9 documents available with AI summaries
This document details mandatory tender submission conditions, including requirements for joint bid power of attorney, bid formatting, product compliance evidence (technical parameters, certificates), and a description of delivery and storage logistics with a schedule.
Tender evaluation will solely be based on the cost of delivering 60E1 rails (steel type R260, 50m length) to the worksite, with the lowest price receiving the maximum score.
This document explains the conditions and requirements for bidder qualification and exclusion grounds for the "Rööpad 60E1" rail tender, serving as an informational guide for the electronic ESPD, not for direct submission.
This document outlines the technical specifications for new 60E1 R260 rails, including adherence to EN 13674-1:2011+A1:2017 standards, length, steel grade, and profile.
This document is a draft sales agreement between Edelaraudtee AS and a supplier for the purchase and sale of 722.520 tons (or 628.284 tons) of 60E1 profile railway rails according to the terms specified in the tender documentation.
This document is a power of attorney template, authorizing a specific individual to represent the tenderer in the "Rööpad 64E1" procurement process, including submitting bids and signing contracts.
This document is a power of attorney form for joint bidders, authorizing a representative to act on their behalf in the procurement process and confirming solidary liability for the performance of the contract.
This document is a form to be completed by the bidder, proving the proper fulfillment of at least two similar rail supply contracts within the last 36 months, with a cumulative volume of at least 1000 tons.
This document specifies the technical requirements for the supply of new 60E1 R260 grade rails, 50 meters in length, with two drilled holes, adhering to EN 13674-1:2011+A1:2017 or equivalent.
Sign up to view document summaries and analysis
This tender for railway rails demonstrates good adherence to basic procurement principles and e-procurement, but is significantly hampered by critical data inconsistencies regarding evaluation criteria and supply volume, alongside a complete absence of sustainability considerations.
The tender generally adheres to legal requirements, including reasonable submission deadlines and the use of ESPD. However, the contradiction between 'relative_weighting' and 'lowest price' for evaluation criteria presents a significant legal risk and potential for dispute. The procedure type 'A (Code: A)' is also somewhat generic, though 'Negotiation Allowed' provides more context.
While the product description and technical specifications are clear, the tender suffers from critical ambiguities. The primary concern is the conflicting information regarding evaluation criteria. Additionally, the specified supply volume of '722.520 tons (or 628.284 tons)' is unclear, which is fundamental to the bid.
Most essential information, such as title, organization, deadlines, and value, is provided. All required documents are listed and summarized. However, the ambiguity in the exact supply quantity and the minimal financial requirements beyond bid cost represent gaps.
The tender supports full document access and e-procurement, promoting equal opportunity. Requirements for references are reasonable and not tailored. However, the conflicting evaluation criteria directly undermine transparency and fairness, as bidders cannot be certain of the exact basis for award. The justification for not dividing into lots is well-reasoned.
The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, enhancing accessibility for bidders. While a contract start date is not explicitly stated, the tender validity period is clear. Financing information refers to the contract draft, which is acceptable.
This category presents the most significant concerns. There are critical contradictions: the estimated value is stated but also marked as classified, evaluation criteria are described as 'relative_weighting' but a document specifies 'lowest price,' and the supply volume is given with two conflicting figures. These inconsistencies are highly problematic.
The tender does not include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This represents a complete absence of sustainability considerations.
Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis
No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes
Hello! I'm your AI assistant for this tender. I can help you understand requirements, deadlines, eligibility criteria, and provide strategic insights.
No credit card required