Insulation works for Tartu-Rakvere pipeline 2026

This tender presents a generally clear and well-structured procurement process for specialized insulation works, but it exhibits some data inconsistencies and lacks explicit sustainability considerations.

The tender generally adheres to legal requirements, with reasonable deadlines and clear identification of exclusion grounds and qualification conditions. The CPV code is appropriate, and no disputes are reported. However, the procedure type and code are listed as N/A, which is a minor detail but indicates a slight lack of specificity in structured data.

The tender description is clear, and requirements are well-documented and understandable through the AI-extracted summaries and document titles. Crucially, evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% lowest price, which is a strong positive aspect. Performance conditions are also clearly defined.

Most essential information, including title, organization, reference, value, and deadlines, is provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the NUTS code for location is missing, and there's a contradiction regarding the estimated value being 'classified' while simultaneously being disclosed. The inability to analyze many .xls/.zip files limits the perceived completeness of the provided data, though the tender itself likely contains all necessary information.

The tender promotes fairness through electronic submission, transparent evaluation criteria (100% lowest price), and reasonable preparation time. The estimated value is disclosed. While requirements for 'new equipment' and specific 'D-category gas works' qualifications are stringent, they appear to be justified for the specialized nature of pipeline insulation works and include 'equivalent qualification' options, thus not overtly tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission is supported, enhancing practicality. Financing information points to the draft contract, which is acceptable. However, a direct document URL is not provided in the basic information, and the contract start date is not explicitly stated, though performance end dates are clear.

While most dates are logical and no disputes are reported, there is a significant inconsistency where the estimated value is explicitly stated (780,000 EUR) but simultaneously flagged as 'Value Classified: Yes'. This contradiction undermines data reliability. Additionally, N/A codes for procedure type are minor inconsistencies.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded. While not a negative, the absence of these elements limits its sustainability score.