Saaremaa, Kotlandi village, ensuring compliance of F1:Mustika:(Kuressaare) feeder (IP8585)

This tender is generally well-structured but contains significant inconsistencies in evaluation criteria and qualification requirements, which severely impact clarity and data consistency. While basic information is provided, the inability to access key project documents limits a full assessment of the tender's scope and detailed requirements.

The tender generally complies with national regulations for small procurements. However, the contradiction between 'relative_weighting' and 'lowest total cost' for evaluation criteria, along with the significant discrepancy in the technical capability requirement (40k vs 400k EUR), poses legal risks due to ambiguity and potential disproportionality.

The project description and performance conditions are clear. However, the critical inconsistency regarding evaluation criteria and the major discrepancy in the technical capability requirement significantly reduce the overall clarity of the tender, potentially leading to bidder confusion.

Basic information, deadlines, and value are complete. However, the inability to analyze critical attached documents (project plans, cost table) due to unsupported file formats means essential details for bidding are not fully available for assessment. Internal inconsistencies also suggest a lack of thoroughness.

The tender promotes fairness through e-procurement and disclosed value. However, the contradiction in evaluation criteria undermines transparency. The technical capability requirement (one previous contract > 40,000 EUR for a 25,600 EUR tender) is borderline disproportionate and could limit participation from smaller, capable bidders.

Electronic submission, clear timelines, and detailed financing conditions enhance practicality. However, the inability to access and process critical project and cost documents (from the provided content) significantly hinders bidders' ability to prepare precise and competitive offers.

This category presents significant concerns. There are critical contradictions regarding evaluation criteria ('relative_weighting' vs. 'lowest total cost') and a major discrepancy in the technical capability requirement (40k vs 400k EUR). The 'Value Classified: Yes' field also contradicts the explicitly stated estimated value.

The tender is EU funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it lacks any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria, indicating a missed opportunity to promote sustainability beyond basic compliance.