Framework Procurement for Construction and Repair Works of Real Estate Owned by Tartu City

This tender for construction and repair works is generally well-structured and fair, but suffers from critical data inconsistencies, particularly an invalid CPV code, and a complete lack of sustainability considerations.

The tender generally adheres to standard procurement practices, utilizing ESPD and a framework agreement structure. Deadlines appear reasonable. However, the provided CPV code '5867' is not a valid 8-digit CPV code, which is a significant classification error that could impact proper advertising and competition. The procedure type (A) for an open procedure with negotiation allowed for mini-competitions is generally compliant.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-defined and understandable. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% price-based in Document 8 and the AI summary, despite an automated flag suggesting otherwise. Technical and financial requirements are outlined.

Basic information, estimated value, and deadlines are provided. However, the crucial duration of the framework agreement itself is not explicitly stated, only the tender validity period. Many critical documents, such as detailed price tables (XLS) and ESPD XMLs, were not analyzed by the AI, limiting a full assessment of their content.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the evaluation criteria (100% price) are objective and transparent. Electronic submission is supported, ensuring equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The long submission period also contributes to fairness.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. The opening place URL is provided. However, the start date and the overall duration of the framework agreement are not explicitly stated, which can hinder bidders' long-term planning. Financing information is limited to the estimated value.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a significant inconsistency with the provided CPV code '5867' which is not a valid 8-digit code. There's also a contradiction between the AI-extracted content (evaluation criteria present) and the automated flag (evaluation criteria missing). The distinction between 'Tender Valid' and 'Contract Duration' is also a point of potential confusion.

The tender does not appear to incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, as indicated by the automated checks and lack of mention in the description or requirements. This represents a missed opportunity for a high-value public contract.