Design of KUMU roof repair works

This tender for Kumu roof design services is generally well-documented with clear requirements, but suffers from critical inconsistencies regarding evaluation criteria and potentially restrictive financial requirements. While promoting green procurement and electronic submission, the lack of a firm contract start date and a high turnover requirement for the project value are notable concerns.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, including reasonable submission deadlines and the 'or equivalent' clause for standards. However, the 'Type: N/A' and 'Procedure: N/A' codes represent minor deficiencies in formal classification.

The description and most requirements are clear and well-documented, supported by specific forms and technical specifications. However, a significant contradiction exists between the 'relative_weighting' characteristic and the explicit '100% based on total cost (lowest price)' evaluation criteria, which severely impacts clarity.

The tender is highly complete, providing all basic information, detailed requirements, evaluation criteria, and a comprehensive set of 11 documents, including technical specifications and a draft contract. Minor formal gaps exist with N/A codes for Type and Procedure.

Fairness is moderately impacted by several factors. While document access is full and e-procurement is enabled, the 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed estimated value reduces full transparency. The minimum net turnover requirement of 40,000 EUR for a 50,000 EUR project is disproportionately high and could restrict competition. The conflicting evaluation criteria also undermine transparency.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. However, the contract start date being 'presumptive' and lacking legal meaning creates uncertainty for planning. The mandatory site visit, while common, adds a practical hurdle for bidders.

Data consistency is significantly compromised by the direct contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' evaluation characteristic and the '100% based on total cost' specified in the evaluation criteria document. Minor inconsistencies include N/A codes for Type and Procedure.

The tender explicitly mentions 'Green Procurement' as a characteristic, which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks specific criteria or focus on social aspects or innovation, and it is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.