Construction works for Ülemiste depot building and infrastructure, Stage 2

This tender is generally well-structured and contains essential information, but its quality is impacted by inconsistencies in evaluation criteria and the unanalyzed nature of some critical documents.

Legal compliance is generally good, with reasonable deadlines, clear procedure type, and appropriate CPV codes. However, the direct contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic info and 'sole evaluation criterion... lowest price' in Document 2 is a significant legal ambiguity.

Requirements are generally well-documented and understandable, with a clear 'or equivalent' clause. The evaluation criteria contradiction, however, poses a significant clarity issue that could confuse bidders.

Basic information is complete, including financial details and timeline. However, specific location information is not detailed in the main tender data, and critical technical and contractual documents (.zip, .xml) were not analyzed, limiting a full assessment of completeness.

Fairness is strong due to full document access, disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, e-procurement, and the explicit 'or equivalent' clause. The evaluation criteria inconsistency is a minor detractor but does not suggest tailoring.

Electronic submission and duration are clearly specified. However, the contract start date being explicitly non-binding reduces predictability for bidders. The unanalyzed critical documents also limit the assessment of practical implementation details.

The direct contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' and 'sole evaluation criterion... lowest price' is a critical data consistency issue. The non-binding nature of the contract start date is a minor inconsistency.

Environmental management requirements are present, which is a positive aspect. However, there is no explicit focus on broader green procurement, social criteria (beyond basic occupational safety), or innovation, as noted by automated checks.