Construction works for storage rooms under the 6th reservoir, Järvevana tee 3

This tender is generally well-documented and transparent, but it contains significant data inconsistencies, particularly regarding the CPV code, which require correction. Overall, it presents a good framework for a simplified procurement procedure.

The tender generally adheres to national regulations, with reasonable deadlines and clear procedure type. However, the CPV code '6039' is not a valid 8-digit CPV code, representing a significant legal compliance and searchability issue. The 'or equivalent' clause is a positive aspect.

The description, requirements, and performance conditions are clearly articulated across the various documents. While the initial 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' was inconsistent with the document stating 'lowest price', the detailed document content clarifies the actual evaluation method.

The tender provides most essential information, including title, reference, organization, description, deadlines, value, and location. A comprehensive set of 12 documents is attached. However, the incorrect CPV code format slightly detracts from overall completeness.

The tender demonstrates good fairness through full document access, disclosed value, objective 'lowest price' evaluation criteria, and support for e-procurement. The allowance for bidders to rely on other entities' resources and the 'or equivalent' clause further enhance equal access and transparency. No evidence of tailored requirements was found.

Electronic submission is supported, and key dates like contract start and duration are clearly specified. Financing conditions are referenced in the draft contract. However, the absence of a direct document URL in the provided information (though implied by e-procurement) and the general nature of financing details slightly reduce the practicality for quick access.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, several inconsistencies exist. The CPV code '6039' is not a standard format. The 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the disclosed estimated value. The 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' conflicts with the document specifying 'lowest price'.

The tender explicitly lists 'Green Procurement' and 'Social Criteria' as characteristics, and includes specific HSE requirements for contractors. However, the automated check flags a lack of innovation focus and notes that the tender is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.