Narva Campus

This tender for the Narva campus construction demonstrates a clear project scope and utilizes e-procurement, but is significantly hampered by critical data inconsistencies, an incorrect CPV code, and a lack of transparency regarding the content of several key documents.

The tender suffers from a critical error in CPV code assignment (5867 is incorrect/non-existent for construction works), which is a fundamental breach of procurement standards. The procedure type is vaguely defined, and the 'Over Sum Limit: No' for a 25.6M EUR EU-funded project is confusing.

While the project description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear, there is a direct contradiction regarding evaluation criteria (stated as 'relative_weighting' but then specified as 'lowest price' in a document). Furthermore, the content of four crucial .rtf documents remains unanalyzed, creating significant ambiguity.

Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the inability to analyze four attached .rtf documents, which likely contain the main tender document and technical specifications, represents a significant gap in the completeness of the accessible information.

The tender promotes fairness through e-procurement and electronic submission, with a reasonable submission deadline. While stringent security requirements (state secret permits) limit competition, they are justifiable for a defence project. However, the contradiction in evaluation criteria and the unanalyzed documents could impact transparency and equal access to information.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, and key dates like contract start and duration are specified. Financing conditions are outlined. The practicality is somewhat hindered by the unanalyzed .rtf documents, which may contain essential practical instructions or forms.

The tender exhibits several critical data inconsistencies, including a contradictory statement on value classification, a confusing 'Over Sum Limit' flag, and a direct conflict between the stated evaluation criteria ('relative_weighting') and the detailed criterion ('lowest price'). The incorrect CPV code also contributes to inconsistency.

The tender explicitly lacks any specified green procurement, social, or innovation criteria, as highlighted by the automated checks. Despite being EU-funded, there is no indication of a focus on sustainability aspects.