Tenders

Reconstruction of Emalätte bridge

Open
Deadline
14 days left
March 17, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Construction
Reference
306563
Value
€121,000
Location
Estonia
Published
February 27, 2026
CPV Code
Evaluation Criteria
Total bid cost100%
Project Timeline

Tender Published

February 27, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 10, 2026

Submission Deadline

March 17, 2026

Tender Opening

March 17, 2026

Contract Start Date

April 01, 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
€121,000
Duration
Not specified
Location
Estonia
Type
Construction
75
Quality Score/100
Good
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€524,963
Avg. Bids
4.7
Competition
Medium
SME Winners
94%
5,932 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

This procurement will order the reconstruction of the Emalätte bridge located on the Taevaskoda hiking trail. Location of works: Taevaskoja village, Põlva municipality, Põlva County, land parcel belonging to the State Forest Management Centre Kiidjärve forest district 82, cadastral code 61901:001:0124, land for forestry 100%. The reconstructed visitor infrastructure/object is in the building register – ER code 221324222.
Electronic 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

15 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (5)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (4)
Technical (3)
Financial (2)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS5
--Deadline for submission: 2026-03-17 12:00:00.
--The contracting authority has the right to change the expected contract award date.
--The contracting authority has the right to award the contract earlier than the expected date.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--No specific exclusion grounds mentioned, but general procurement law applies.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS4
--Bidders must confirm compliance with conditions using the Hankepass (preliminary evidence).
--Bidders must confirm compliance with specified conditions.
--Bidders must provide clarification on business secrets if applicable.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS3
--Bidders must have prior guided familiarization with the object (Emalätte bridge).
--Technical specifications for the reconstruction of Emalätte bridge are detailed in LISA 1 - Tehniline kirjeldus_Emalätte sild.docx, including location, scope, environmental and safety requirements, and time limits.
--The contract project (Lepingu projekt.docx) defines construction work conditions and quality requirements.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS2
--The tender is valued at 121,000.0 EUR.
--Bids will be evaluated primarily based on total cost, with the lowest price receiving maximum points.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

7 documents available with AI summaries

VastavustingimusedPDF
306563_vastavustingimused.pdf -- 9.0 KB

The contracting authority requires a prior guided site visit and confirmation of compliance with tender conditions, as well as clarification on trade secrets if applicable.

Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajadPDF
306563_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf -- 4.9 KB

The contracting authority Riigimetsa Majandamise Keskus evaluates bids for the Emalätte bridge reconstruction primarily based on the total cost, where the lowest price receives the maximum score.

Hankepass täiendatavate selgitustegaPDF
306563_hankepass_taiendavate_selgitustega.pdf -- 39.7 KB

The procurement pass (ESPD) is a self-declaration by the economic operator, serving as preliminary evidence instead of certificates issued by authorities or third parties, outlining the contracting authority's conditions and the expected response format.

HankedokumentDOC
HD.docx -- 58.1 KB

The State Forest Management Centre invites bids for the reconstruction of Emalätte bridge, requiring mandatory guided site visits for potential bidders.

Hankelepingu projektDOC
Lepingu projekt.docx -- 37.7 KB

The draft contract project defines the construction work conditions, quality requirements, and integral parts of the contract, including the contractor's bid and technical description.

Lepingu lisa 1 - tehniline kirjeldusDOC
LISA 1 - Tehniline kirjeldus_Emalätte sild.do... -- 31.8 KB

The technical specification details the location, scope, environmental and safety requirements, and time restrictions for the Emalätte bridge reconstruction works.

Ühispakkujate volikiri ja kinnitusDOC
Ühispakkujate volikiri ja kinnitus.doc -- 34.5 KB

The joint bidders' power of attorney and confirmation is a required document that proves the rights and obligations of joint bidder members and confirms their participation in the tender.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for the reconstruction of Emalätte bridge is generally well-structured with clear requirements and a reasonable timeline. However, it lacks specific sustainability considerations and has some minor practical limitations regarding document formats.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with general procurement laws, with a clear procedure and proper CPV code. Deadlines are reasonable, and no disputes are indicated. The procedure type (LM) suggests a negotiated procedure, which is permissible. The status '11' typically indicates an ongoing or active tender.

Clarity80/100

The description of the reconstruction work is clear, and the location is well-defined. Key requirements such as the mandatory site visit and the use of Hankepass are specified. The evaluation criteria are mentioned as 'relative_weighting', which is a standard approach.

Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including estimated value, duration type, and contract start date. However, some crucial documents (e.g., technical specifications, contract project) are referenced but not directly accessible or are in formats not easily analyzed by AI, impacting the completeness of the provided information for a full assessment.

Some key documents are in formats not easily analyzed by AI (e.g., .asice, .zip).
Fairness85/100

The tender is fair, with full document access (though format limitations exist) and disclosed value. The criteria are objective (primarily cost). The use of e-procurement and electronic submission enhances fairness. There are no apparent requirements tailored to specific companies.

Practicality65/100

E-submission is mandated, which is practical. The contract start date is specified. However, the reliance on specific file formats for key documents (.asice, .zip) might pose practical challenges for bidders if these are not standard or easily handled. The URL for opening place is provided.

Key documents are in formats not easily handled by standard AI analysis tools, potentially impacting bidder preparation.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated and consistent. Dates are logical, and there are no indications of suspension or disputes. The tender valid period of 3 months aligns with the contract start date.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of specific sustainability focus within the tender requirements.

No explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation.

Strengths

Clear description of work and location
Mandatory site visit requirement
Electronic submission and e-procurement
Objective evaluation criteria (primarily cost)

Concerns

Lack of explicit sustainability criteria
Some key documents in non-standard or AI-unfriendly formats
Potential for contract award date changes

Recommendations

1. Incorporate specific sustainability criteria (e.g., environmental impact mitigation, use of sustainable materials).
2. Ensure all critical tender documents are provided in universally accessible and AI-analyzable formats.
3. Clarify the implications and potential frequency of contract award date changes.

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