Tenders

Construction of a lift shaft and lift in the Narva Language Lyceum building for the integration of students with special needs into the learning process

Open
Deadline
14 days left
March 16, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Construction
Reference
306181
Value
€74,096
Location
Estonia
Published
February 17, 2026
CPV Code
Evaluation Criteria
Total bid cost100%
Project Timeline

Tender Published

February 17, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 09, 2026

Submission Deadline

March 16, 2026

Tender Opening

March 16, 2026

Win ProbabilityPRO
🔒
Upgrade to Professional
See your estimated win probability based on historical data.
Upgrade to Professional →
Buyer IntelligencePRO
🔒
Unlock Buyer Intelligence
See spending patterns, preferred procedures, and more.
Upgrade to Professional →
Sector InsightsPRO
🔒
Unlock Sector Insights
See average winning prices, competition levels, and market trends.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
€74,096
Duration
5 months
Location
Estonia
Type
Construction
82
Quality Score/100
Excellent
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€524,963
Avg. Bids
4.7
Competition
Medium
SME Winners
94%
5,932 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

The main objective of the procurement is to carry out all construction works specified in the project documentation and public procurement documents on time and at optimal cost. The building must comply with all legal requirements and standards, be as durable and long-lasting as possible in maintenance, and have the lowest possible maintenance costs.
EU FundedElectronic Submission

Risk Analysis

Please log in to use risk analysis.

Login

Win Strategy

Please log in to access winning strategy recommendations.

Login

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

18 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (7)
Mandatory (2)
Compliance (5)
Technical (2)
Financial (2)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS7
--The bidder must submit the bid price using the "Lisa 2 Pakkumuse maksumustabel (LIFT).xlsx" document.
--The bidder must submit the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) electronically.
--The bidder must confirm the submission of costs.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS2
--The bidder (and its subcontractors) must not have committed criminal offenses such as fraud or money laundering.
--The bidder must meet the exclusion conditions described in the ESPD guide.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS5
--The bidder must confirm compliance with all tender conditions.
--The bidder must meet the qualification conditions described in the ESPD guide.
--In case of a joint bid, a power of attorney must be confirmed/provided.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS2
--The bidder must be capable of building and installing a lift shaft and lift according to the technical requirements specified in "Lisa 1 Tehniline kirjeldus (LIFT)_1702.doc".
--The lift and shaft must integrate SEN students into the learning process.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS2
--The bidder must submit a detailed breakdown of the bid price.
--The bid price is the sole evaluation criterion, with the lowest price receiving maximum points.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

7 documents available with AI summaries

Alltöövõtjate kontrollimise tingimused lepingu täitmise etapisPDF
306181_alltoovotjate_kontrollimise_tingimused... -- 20.8 KB

This document outlines the conditions for checking subcontractors and the grounds for their exclusion during the contract execution phase, focusing on criminal offenses such as fraud and money laundering.

VastavustingimusedPDF
306181_vastavustingimused.pdf -- 6.8 KB

This document specifies compliance conditions, requiring bidders to confirm joint bid authorization, declare business secrets, ensure subcontractor eligibility, and affirm adherence to all tender terms and cost submission.

Lisa 2. Pakkumuse maksumustabelXLS
Lisa 2 Pakkumuse maksumustabel (LIFT).xlsx -- 51.0 KB

This tender cost table is required for detailed submission of the bid price, including a breakdown of costs and unit prices for various cost groups and works.

Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajadPDF
306181_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf -- 2.8 KB

This document describes the tender evaluation criteria, where the sole criterion is the total bid cost (100% weight), with the lowest price receiving the maximum points.

Hankepass täiendatavate selgitustegaPDF
306181_hankepass_taiendavate_selgitustega.pdf -- 70.3 KB

This document is an explanatory guide for completing the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD), outlining the contracting authority's qualification and exclusion criteria that bidders must submit electronically.

Lisa 1. Tehniline kirjeldusDOC
Lisa 1 Tehniline kirjeldus (LIFT)_1702.doc -- 85.0 KB

This document outlines the technical specifications for the construction of an elevator shaft and the installation of an elevator in the Narva Language Lyceum, aimed at integrating students with special educational needs into the learning process.

Lisa 3. Hankelepingu projektDOC
Lisa 3 Hankelepingu projekt (LIFT)_1702.docx -- 49.6 KB

This document is the draft works contract for the construction of a lift shaft and lift in the Narva Language Lyceum, outlining the contract terms and parties.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

82
Excellent

Tender Quality Score

This tender is generally well-structured and comprehensive, demonstrating good legal compliance and fairness. However, a notable inconsistency regarding the evaluation criteria and the lack of explicit green or innovation aspects slightly detract from its overall quality.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance85/100

The tender appears to comply with EU/national procurement regulations, utilizing ESPD and electronic submission for an EU-funded project. Deadlines are reasonable, and CPV codes are appropriately assigned. The procedure type is indicated by a code, which is common but could be more explicitly described for universal clarity.

Clarity75/100

The description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear and well-documented, referring to specific annexes for technical specifications and submission forms. However, there is a direct contradiction between the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' characteristic and the explicit statement in Document 2 and AI-extracted financial requirements that the 'sole criterion is the total bid cost (100% weight)'. This inconsistency significantly reduces clarity.

Contradiction in evaluation criteria description (relative weighting vs. lowest price only).
Completeness90/100

The tender is highly complete, providing all basic information, financial details, timelines, and location. All essential documents, including technical specifications, draft contract, and submission forms, are listed and appear to be available, ensuring bidders have comprehensive information.

Fairness95/100

Fairness is excellent, with full document access, disclosed value, and reasonable preparation time. The evaluation criterion (lowest price) is objective and transparent, and e-procurement ensures equal access. There is no indication that requirements are tailored to a specific company.

Practicality80/100

The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, which enhances practicality. The contract duration and financing information are clearly specified. While a specific contract start date is not provided, this is typical for the tender stage.

Data Consistency70/100

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, the significant inconsistency regarding the evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. 100% lowest price) is a notable flaw in data consistency.

Inconsistent description of evaluation criteria.
Sustainability60/100

The tender explicitly addresses a strong social aspect by aiming to integrate SEN students into the learning process, which is commendable. It is also EU-funded, implying adherence to higher standards. However, there are no explicit green procurement or innovation-focused criteria mentioned.

Lack of explicit green procurement criteria.
No explicit innovation focus.

Strengths

Clear social objective (integrating SEN students).
Comprehensive documentation provided.
High transparency and fairness in process.
Electronic submission and e-procurement enabled.
EU-funded project, implying robust standards.

Concerns

Contradiction in evaluation criteria description.
Lack of explicit green procurement criteria.
No explicit innovation focus.

Recommendations

1. Clarify and harmonize the description of evaluation criteria to avoid ambiguity.
2. Consider incorporating explicit green procurement criteria where applicable.
3. Explore opportunities to include innovation-focused aspects in future tenders.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

Add to Pipeline