Reconstruction of the ground floor of Tallinn University of Applied Sciences main building

This tender for the reconstruction of Tallinna Tehnikakõrgkool's 0th floor is generally well-structured and comprehensive, demonstrating strong clarity and fairness. While it incorporates green procurement principles, there is room for improvement in explicitly addressing social aspects and fostering innovation.

The tender appears to comply with national and EU procurement regulations, utilizing standard documents like ESPD and providing reasonable timelines. The procedure type 'A' is understood as an open procedure, although the 'Code: N/A' for type and procedure is a minor ambiguity.

The tender provides a clear description of the works, well-defined requirements, and transparent evaluation criteria. The various documents, including technical specifications and contract drafts, contribute significantly to overall clarity.

The tender is comprehensive, providing all essential information, detailed requirements, evaluation criteria, and a full suite of supporting documents, including contract drafts and technical specifications.

The tender demonstrates good fairness with transparent evaluation criteria, reasonable deadlines, and electronic submission. The estimated value is disclosed, mitigating concerns about 'Value Classified: Yes' which might refer to internal budget details. Requirements are standard for the sector and do not appear tailored.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides clear timelines. While specific financing sources beyond the estimated value are not detailed, this is not a critical practical impediment. The document URL for the portal is provided, implying document access.

The data provided is largely consistent and complete, with all key fields populated and no apparent logical inconsistencies in dates or status. The 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed value is the only minor inconsistency.

The tender explicitly includes green procurement aspects and mentions energy efficiency, which is a positive. However, it lacks explicit social criteria or an innovation focus, and it is not EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.