Conducting an audit of the Estonian Information Security Standard (E-ITS)

This tender for E-ITS audit services for five hospitals demonstrates good overall quality with clear requirements and a transparent evaluation process based on the lowest price. Minor inconsistencies in procedure coding and a lack of sustainability considerations are noted.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, featuring a reasonable submission deadline and proper CPV code assignment. However, the procedure type is vaguely defined as "A (Code: N/A)", which lacks specificity for a procurement process that allows negotiation.

The tender's description, requirements, and evaluation criteria are clearly articulated. The technical specifications and draft contract provide comprehensive details, ensuring bidders have a clear understanding of the scope and expectations. AI-extracted requirements are also well-defined.

All essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and location, is provided. The tender includes a good set of supporting documents, such as technical specifications, a draft contract, and ESPD requirements, contributing to its overall completeness.

The tender promotes fairness through full document access, disclosed estimated value, reasonable preparation deadlines, and objective evaluation criteria (lowest price). The use of e-procurement and generic requirements further ensures equal access and prevents tailoring to specific companies. The "Value Classified: Yes" flag is considered an automated error given the explicit value.

The tender supports electronic submission and specifies the e-procurement portal for opening. Contract duration is clear. However, a specific contract start date is not provided, and direct URLs to individual tender documents (beyond the portal) are not explicitly listed, which could slightly impact ease of access for some users.

The tender data is largely consistent, with logical dates and no detected disputes or suspensions. The primary inconsistency is the "Value Classified: Yes" flag appearing alongside a clearly stated estimated value, which is likely an automated data extraction anomaly. Minor N/A codes for Type and Procedure are also noted.

The tender does not incorporate any specific green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. There is no indication of EU funding, which often drives higher sustainability standards.