Construction of the parking lot of Veltsi Kindergarten in Rakvere municipality

This appears to be a preliminary market consultation (RFI) for a parking lot construction project, seeking feedback on budget sufficiency rather than formal bids. While transparent in its intent, the formal classification codes are ambiguous, and some key details for a future tender are not yet established.

The tender's description clearly indicates it is a preliminary market consultation (RFI) to assess budget sufficiency, which is a legitimate pre-procurement activity. However, the formal 'Type: E' and 'Procedure: TU' codes are ambiguous and do not clearly identify it as an RFI, potentially causing confusion if not for the detailed description. Deadlines are reasonable, and CPV codes are appropriate. No disputes or suspensions are noted.

The purpose of this notice as a market consultation to gather feedback on a potential budget is clearly articulated in the description. The AI-extracted requirements are well-defined and refer to specific, provided documents. The absence of evaluation criteria is appropriate for a market consultation, as no formal bids are being evaluated at this stage.

Basic information like title, reference, and organization are present. Deadlines are specified, and location information (Veltsi kindergarten, Rakvere rural municipality) is provided. However, a formal estimated value for the eventual tender is not disclosed (only a budget for feedback), and the contract duration and start date are not explicitly stated in the main summary, though a draft contract is available.

Full document access is provided, and the budget for feedback is transparently mentioned. The 15-day deadline for feedback is reasonable. The requirements are generic and technical, showing no signs of being tailored to a specific company. E-procurement is enabled, promoting equal access. The nature of this as a market consultation inherently promotes fairness by gathering broad market input.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. However, the lack of a definitive contract start date, a confirmed financing amount (beyond the budget for feedback), and a clear duration makes it less practical for potential bidders to fully plan or commit resources for a future formal tender.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no noted suspensions or disputes. The only minor inconsistency is the missing NUTS code.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is noted as not being EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This indicates a neutral approach to sustainability.