Design of NTPS power supply provision on the Rail Baltica railway track

This tender demonstrates good adherence to basic procedural requirements and fairness principles, but suffers from a critical inconsistency regarding evaluation criteria and a lack of explicit detail on contract duration and sustainability aspects.

Deadlines are reasonable, and the use of ESPD along with 'or equivalent' clauses suggests compliance with EU/national regulations. No disputes or suspensions are detected. However, the tender type and procedure codes are vaguely defined as N/A.

The description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear, and supporting documents aid understanding. However, there is a critical contradiction between the 'relative_weighting' evaluation criteria in the basic information and 'evaluated solely based on the total cost' stated in Document 2.

Basic information, estimated value, and deadlines are provided. However, the actual contract duration is not explicitly stated, and the exact region for location info is undefined. Critical documents (ESPD XML, Contract Draft ZIP) could not be analyzed for content.

The value is disclosed, submission deadlines are reasonable, and 'or equivalent' clauses prevent tailoring, promoting fair competition. E-procurement is enabled. However, the inconsistency in evaluation criteria could undermine transparency and fairness.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, and the contract start date is known. Financing information (EU Funded) is available. However, the actual contract duration is not specified.

Dates are logical and consistent, and no disputes are reported. However, there is a major contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria ('relative_weighting' vs. 'lowest price'). Tender type and procedure codes are also N/A.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, no explicit green, social, or innovation criteria are mentioned in the provided information.