Construction of Climbing Walls for Alutaguse Climbing Centre

This tender for climbing wall construction is generally well-structured with comprehensive documentation and electronic submission, but it suffers from a critical inconsistency regarding the evaluation criteria, which could lead to significant legal and fairness issues.

The tender generally complies with basic legal requirements, including reasonable deadlines, defined procedure type, and appropriate CPV codes. However, the contradiction between 'Negotiation Allowed' for an Open Procedure and the stated 'lowest cost' evaluation criterion, coupled with the 'relative_weighting' characteristic, creates significant legal ambiguity regarding the actual evaluation method.

While the project description and individual requirements are mostly clear, there is a critical lack of clarity regarding the evaluation criteria. The basic information states 'relative_weighting', but Document 4 explicitly specifies 'lowest cost'. This fundamental contradiction makes it unclear how bids will be assessed.

The tender provides a good amount of basic information and numerous supporting documents, including technical specifications and required forms. However, the fundamental inconsistency in the evaluation criteria means that the complete and unambiguous framework for bid assessment is not fully defined.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, and e-procurement. Requirements appear generic and allow equivalent solutions. However, the contradictory evaluation criteria severely undermine fairness, as bidders cannot be certain of the basis on which their proposals will be judged, creating an uneven playing field.

The tender is practical, supporting electronic submission and e-procurement. A document URL is provided for access, financing is identified as EU Funded, and the contract duration is clearly specified. The lack of an explicit contract start date is a minor detail.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, the direct and critical contradiction between the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic characteristics and 'lowest cost' in the dedicated evaluation criteria document represents a severe data inconsistency.

The tender is EU Funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, which are increasingly important for modern public procurements.