Provision of Outdoor Lighting Maintenance and Operational Services for State Roads in the Eastern Region in 2026 – 2031

This tender for road lighting maintenance in the Ida region is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements and a transparent price-based evaluation. However, it suffers from significant inconsistencies regarding the evaluation criteria and minor ambiguities in location description, while lacking explicit sustainability considerations.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, referencing the Public Procurement Act and ESPD. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the characteristic 'Negotiation Allowed' for a procedure type 'A' (typically Open Procedure) introduces a minor ambiguity regarding the exact procedural framework and its alignment with standard EU directives.

The service description and technical requirements are generally clear, including specific personnel qualifications and operational demands. However, there is a significant contradiction between the "Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting" listed in the characteristics and the explicit statement in Document 1 and AI-extracted requirements that the "sole criterion is the bid price (100% weight)". Additionally, the "Location Info: Täpne piirkond määramata" contradicts the "Ida regiooni" specified in the title and description.

The tender includes all basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and duration. Key deadlines are specified. While all 9 documents are listed, the content of critical documents like the contract draft (HD II Lepingu projekt koos lisadega.zip) and submission forms (HD I Vormid.zip) could not be analyzed due to their ZIP format, limiting a full assessment of their internal completeness. The general region is specified, but "Täpne piirkond määramata" creates a minor gap.

The tender promotes fairness through electronic submission, disclosure of estimated value, and a reasonable submission period. The justification for not dividing the procurement into parts is provided, enhancing transparency. While the evaluation criterion (100% price) is objective, the inconsistency with "relative_weighting" could cause minor confusion.

The tender supports electronic submission and specifies a clear contract start date and duration, which are practical aspects. The estimated value is provided. However, the reliance on ZIP files for crucial documents like the contract draft and submission forms, along with an XML for ESPD, might present minor practical challenges for some bidders who prefer direct access to editable or easily viewable formats.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a significant inconsistency regarding the evaluation criteria, where "relative_weighting" is stated in the characteristics while the documents explicitly define a "sole criterion being the bid price (100% weight)". A minor inconsistency also exists in the location description ("Täpne piirkond määramata" vs. "Ida regiooni").

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. There is no indication of EU funding, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations.