Reconstruction of Tori wastewater pumping stations RVP-1, RVP-2 and RVP-3

This tender for the reconstruction of wastewater pumping stations is generally well-structured and transparent, particularly regarding its clear evaluation criteria and e-procurement features. However, it exhibits some minor data inconsistencies and lacks explicit details on project duration and sustainability aspects.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type, assigns appropriate CPV codes, and references national procurement regulations (RHS). Deadlines are reasonable, and there are no detected disputes or suspensions. A minor metadata inconsistency exists with 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the estimated value being disclosed.

The description of works is clear and unambiguous. Requirements are well-documented and understandable, supported by AI-extracted details and specific tender documents. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% cost-based, ensuring transparency.

All basic information, financial details, and deadlines are provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are comprehensively defined. However, the actual duration of the reconstruction works is not explicitly stated, and the technical description is provided as a .zip file, which is not summarized.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, disclosed estimated value, reasonable preparation deadlines, and objective, transparent evaluation criteria (100% cost). Electronic submission ensures equal access, and requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission is fully supported, enhancing practicality. However, the contract start date is not specified, and the actual project duration is missing. Financing information is limited to payment conditions within the contract, without details on funding source or specific budget allocation beyond the estimated value.

Key fields are generally populated, and dates are logical. The primary inconsistency is the contradiction between the disclosed 'Estimated Value' and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag. A minor point is the 'relative_weighting' characteristic when the evaluation is 100% cost.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.