Nursery works at RMK Rulli nursery 2026

This tender is generally well-documented and clear in its scope of work, but it contains a significant inconsistency in evaluation criteria that requires immediate clarification. While most aspects are satisfactory, the lack of sustainability focus is a missed opportunity.

Deadlines are reasonable, and the CPV code is appropriate. The use of ESPD suggests compliance with general procurement principles. Minor ambiguities regarding the procedure type ('A' vs. 'Negotiation Allowed') and the evaluation criteria inconsistency (metadata vs. document) are the main deductions, though the document itself clarifies the evaluation method.

The description of work and requirements are generally clear, and technical specifications are detailed. However, the direct contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic information and '100% lowest price' specified in Document 4 is a significant clarity issue that can confuse bidders.

All essential basic information, deadlines, value, duration, and location are provided. Requirements and criteria are defined across the documents, and the tender package appears comprehensive.

The value is disclosed, e-procurement is enabled, and deadlines are reasonable. However, the mandatory site visit can be a barrier for some bidders, and the contradiction in evaluation criteria undermines transparency and fairness, potentially misleading participants. The explanation for not dividing into lots is reasonable.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clear. However, the absence of a direct document URL and a precise contract start date (beyond 'spring work period') are minor practical inconveniences for bidders.

The critical inconsistency between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic information and '100% based on the total cost... lowest price receives maximum points' in Document 4 is a major flaw. Other data points are consistent.

No explicit green, social, or innovation criteria are mentioned in the tender. This represents a missed opportunity for a state-managed forestry tender to promote sustainable practices or social responsibility.