Construction of a PVC hall

This tender presents a moderate quality assessment, with clear project details and comprehensive documentation, but is significantly hampered by critical inconsistencies in evaluation criteria and potentially restrictive technical requirements.

The tender generally adheres to basic legal requirements, with reasonable deadlines and disclosed information. However, the use of non-standard procedure type codes ("E", "MS") for an EU-funded project introduces ambiguity regarding full compliance with specific EU public procurement directives.

While the project description and technical requirements are clear, there is a critical contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria. The basic information states "relative_weighting," but a key document specifies evaluation "solely based on the lowest total cost." This ambiguity significantly hinders bidder understanding.

The tender provides most essential information, including project details, financial aspects, timelines, and a comprehensive set of documents. However, the inconsistency in evaluation criteria slightly detracts from the overall completeness of a fully coherent tender package.

The tender supports e-procurement and discloses the estimated value, promoting equal access. However, the technical capability requirement for bidders to have installed "at least three halls with an area of over 500 m² within the last 36 months" is quite restrictive for a project of this estimated value, potentially limiting competition. The contradictory evaluation criteria also reduce transparency.

The tender is practical, supporting electronic submission and clearly defining the contract duration and financing sources. While the exact contract start date is not explicitly stated, it is inferable from the project end date and duration.

There are significant data inconsistencies, primarily the direct contradiction between the stated "relative_weighting" evaluation criteria and the document specifying "lowest total cost." Additionally, the tender states the value is "classified" while simultaneously disclosing it.

Despite being partly EU-funded, the tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or innovation criteria beyond general environmental and ethical compliance requirements for the business partner. This represents a missed opportunity to promote broader sustainability goals.