Pae street 8 Kärdla, comprehensive reconstruction design and construction works for an apartment building (EIS)

This tender presents a well-documented procurement for apartment building renovation, but its explicit non-compliance with national public procurement law, despite being EU-funded, raises significant legal and transparency concerns. A key contradiction in evaluation criteria also impacts clarity and data consistency.

The tender explicitly states it is not a public procurement under the Public Procurement Act (Document 7), which is a major deviation from standard legal frameworks for public tenders, especially given its EU funding. While deadlines are very reasonable and CPV codes are appropriate, the lack of adherence to national public procurement law significantly impacts this score, raising questions about the applicable legal framework and challenge mechanisms.

The overall description and requirements are generally clear and well-documented. However, there is a direct contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria: the basic information states 'relative_weighting', while Document 3 specifies 'total cost of the offer (100% weight)'. This inconsistency significantly reduces clarity for bidders.

The tender is highly complete, providing all essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, detailed financing conditions, and a comprehensive timeline. All relevant documents, including qualification conditions, terms of reference, and a draft contract, are attached and summarized.

Fairness is generally good, with the estimated value disclosed, electronic submission enabled, and requirements appearing generic and not tailored. The extremely generous submission deadline (over a year) provides ample time for preparation. However, the contradiction in evaluation criteria slightly detracts from full transparency and objectivity.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, enhancing practicality. Financing information and contract duration are clearly specified. Minor practical omissions include the lack of an explicit document URL (though implied by e-procurement) and a specific contract start date.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. However, the direct contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' and the '100% total cost' evaluation criterion is a significant data inconsistency.

The tender explicitly identifies as 'Green Procurement' and is 'EU Funded', which are strong positive indicators for sustainability. The 'average employee salary requirements' can also be interpreted as a social aspect. There is no explicit focus on innovation.