Comprehensive reconstruction of the apartment building at Aasa tn 9, design-build contract with EIS support

This tender demonstrates good overall quality with clear requirements and transparent financial details, though minor inconsistencies and an unanalyzed document present some areas for improvement.

The tender appears generally compliant with standard procurement practices, featuring reasonable deadlines, a relevant CPV code, and no detected disputes. However, the specific procedure codes (E, MS) are not explicitly defined within the provided context, which could be a minor clarity point.

The project description, technical requirements, and evaluation criteria (lowest price, 100% weight) are clearly articulated in the detailed documents. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and easy to understand. A minor inconsistency exists between the high-level 'relative_weighting' characteristic and the detailed '100% lowest price' criterion, though clarified by documents.

All essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, and deadlines, is provided. Requirements and criteria are well-defined across the documents. A notable concern is that one tender document (.asice file) could not be analyzed, which might contain critical information for bidders.

The tender promotes fairness through disclosed value, objective evaluation criteria (lowest price), and support for e-procurement and electronic submission. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. Full document access is mostly provided, with the exception of the unanalyzed .asice file.

Electronic submission is supported, and financing information and contract duration are clearly specified. However, the estimated contract start date is not provided, which can affect bidder planning. The inability to analyze one document (.asice) might also pose a practical challenge for bidders.

Data consistency is high, with most key fields populated and logical dates. The primary inconsistency lies in the high-level characteristic stating 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria, while detailed documents clearly specify '100% lowest total price'. This is a minor flaw as the detailed information clarifies the actual criterion.

The tender explicitly mentions 'Green Procurement' and includes a concrete sustainability goal of achieving energy class C for the building. However, it lacks explicit social criteria or an innovation focus, limiting its comprehensive sustainability scope.