Procurement of a Lifting Platform with Installation and Maintenance

This tender for a lifting platform demonstrates good documentation and electronic processing but is significantly hampered by a highly restrictive "official representative in Estonia" requirement and a critical inconsistency in evaluation criteria. These issues severely impact fairness and data consistency, potentially limiting competition and causing bidder confusion.

The tender generally adheres to standard procurement practices, including clear deadlines, CPV codes, and electronic submission. The use of ESPD documents indicates compliance with EU/national regulations. However, the requirement for bidders to be an "official representative in Estonia" raises significant legal concerns regarding potential restriction of competition and discriminatory practices, which could be challenged under procurement law.

The tender description, technical specifications, and instructions to bidders are generally clear and well-documented. The mandatory site visit further aids clarity. However, there is a direct contradiction between the "Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting" stated in the procurement characteristics and the "100% cost" evaluation specified in Document 7, which creates significant ambiguity for bidders.

The tender provides all essential information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and location. Detailed technical specifications, draft contracts, and instructions are included. While the "Contract Duration" field states 6 months, the scope clearly outlines 5 years of maintenance, which is clarified in the documents. The presence of 12 documents, including drawings and templates, indicates a comprehensive package.

The tender promotes fairness through electronic submission, e-procurement, and full disclosure of the estimated value. Deadlines are reasonable. However, the requirement that "The bidder must be an official representative in Estonia" is a significant barrier to competition. This clause is highly restrictive and appears to tailor the tender to a very specific type of supplier, potentially excluding many otherwise qualified bidders and undermining the principle of equal treatment.

The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, which enhances practicality for bidders. The mandatory site visit is a practical measure to ensure accurate bidding. The provision of detailed technical drawings and instructions also contributes positively. However, the restrictive "official representative in Estonia" requirement significantly limits the pool of potential bidders, making it less practical for a broader market to participate.

Most basic data fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. There are no detected disputes or suspensions. However, the fundamental contradiction between "Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting" in the main characteristics and the explicit "100% cost" evaluation in Document 7 is a severe data inconsistency that can lead to confusion and potential challenges.

The tender does not include any specific requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU-funded, which often implies higher sustainability standards.