Connection of street lighting on Põhjaringi street L1, Raadi small borough, Tartu Rural Municipality, Tartu County to the electricity grid (LC4416, IP8520)

This tender demonstrates good clarity and practicality with electronic submission and detailed financing, but raises significant fairness concerns due to disproportionate experience requirements and suffers from incomplete document processing for analysis.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, featuring a reasonable submission deadline, clearly defined procedure type (Väikehange), and appropriate CPV codes. No disputes or suspensions are noted. The payment terms, including the factoring program, are detailed but somewhat complex.

The tender description is clear and includes specific details regarding the scope of work. Requirements are well-categorized and understandable from the AI-extracted summaries. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as the lowest price (100% weight). Performance conditions refer to external documents, which is standard practice.

While basic information, financial details, timeline, and classification are complete, several critical documents (Väikehanke alusdokumendid, Projekt, Maksumuse_tabel) are attached but their content was not supported for AI analysis. This significantly impacts the completeness of the provided information for a comprehensive assessment and could pose accessibility challenges for bidders.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the disproportionate technical capability requirements. Requiring bidders to have successfully completed at least three similar contracts, with one valued at €40,000 (excluding VAT), for a tender with an estimated value of €16,274, is overly restrictive for a small procurement and likely limits competition to larger, more established companies. This effectively tailors the tender.

The tender scores highly on practicality, supporting electronic submission and e-procurement. Key dates such as contract start and work completion are clearly specified. Detailed financing information, including payment terms and a factoring program, is provided, enhancing transparency for potential bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. No disputes or suspensions are reported. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as 'Value Classified: Yes' appearing alongside a disclosed estimated value, and 'relative_weighting' being used when the evaluation criterion is explicitly 'lowest price (100%)', though these are minor and clarified by other information.

The tender explicitly lacks specific criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, as indicated by automated checks. While it is EU funded, this does not automatically translate into specific sustainability requirements within the tender documentation itself.