Procurement of chair replacement work for Estonia Concert Hall and Pärnu Concert Hall

This tender for concert hall seat replacement is generally well-structured with clear work descriptions and e-procurement, but it contains critical inconsistencies regarding evaluation criteria and the mandatory status of key documents, which could lead to bidder confusion.

The tender provides a reasonable submission period and clearly defines the procedure type as 'Open'. However, the CPV code 6450 ('Building installation work') is somewhat broad for specific chair replacement, and the 'Negotiation Allowed' characteristic for an Open Procedure is unusual and potentially inconsistent with standard procurement regulations for this procedure type.

The description of the work and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, there is a significant contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria: the 'PROCUREMENT CHARACTERISTICS' state 'relative_weighting', while Document 4 explicitly states 'the sole evaluation criterion for this tender is the total cost of the bid without taxes, where the lowest price will receive the maximum points'. This inconsistency creates ambiguity for bidders.

All basic information, deadlines, and estimated value are provided. However, critical documents such as the ESPD (Document 1), Evaluation Criteria (Document 4), and Technical Specifications (Document 5) are marked as 'Required: No'. This is a significant oversight, as these documents are essential for preparing a compliant and competitive bid.

Full document access is provided, and the estimated value is disclosed. The deadline for preparation is reasonable, and e-procurement ensures equal access. While the stated 'lowest price' criterion is objective, the contradiction with 'relative_weighting' in the tender characteristics reduces overall transparency and could be perceived as unfair if not clarified.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract start date is known. However, the full duration of the contract is not explicitly specified, only the tender validity. While an opening place URL is provided, a direct document URL is not, though access via the e-procurement system is implied.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a critical inconsistency between the 'PROCUREMENT CHARACTERISTICS' stating 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and Document 4 explicitly defining 'lowest price'. A minor inconsistency is 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the estimated value being disclosed.

The tender does not include any specific requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. The automated checks confirm no focus on these areas, resulting in a neutral score.