Design and construction works for a new cowshed complex and milking parlor

This tender is well-structured regarding basic information, but it suffers from significant clarity and data consistency issues, particularly concerning evaluation criteria. The qualification requirements are also quite restrictive, potentially limiting competition.

Deadlines are reasonable, and the CPV code is appropriate. The tender is EU-funded, implying adherence to EU directives. However, the procedure type codes (Type: E, Procedure: MS) are unexplained, and the high financial and technical requirements, while not strictly illegal, could be seen as overly restrictive, potentially limiting competition.

The project description and technical requirements are generally clear and detailed. However, there is a critical and fundamental contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria: 'relative_weighting' is stated in the characteristics, while 'cost (100%)' is specified in the evaluation document and AI-extracted requirements. This ambiguity is a major flaw that would cause significant confusion for bidders.

Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are provided. Key documents like technical specifications, contract draft, and qualification requirements are listed. However, the AI summary notes 'No specific mandatory exclusion grounds identified' and 'No specific eligibility requirements identified' in the summaries, which are typically standard. Additionally, several crucial documents (pricing tables, preliminary design) are in formats (XLS, ASICE) that were not analyzed, limiting a full assessment of their content.

Full document access and e-procurement are supported, and the value is disclosed. However, the financial requirement of an annual net turnover of at least 10 million EUR for a 5.04 million EUR project, combined with the technical requirement of experience in constructing at least two similar livestock buildings (each 5000 m²) within the last 5 years, appears highly restrictive. These stringent requirements could significantly limit competition and potentially indicate tailoring towards a very specific, large contractor. The inconsistency in evaluation criteria also undermines transparency.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is specified. Financing as 'EU Funded' is known. However, an explicit document URL is not provided in the summary (though implied by e-procurement), and the exact contract start date is not stated. The inability to analyze key documents like pricing tables (XLS) and preliminary design (ASICE) also poses a practical challenge for a comprehensive understanding of the tender's practical implications.

Most basic data fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a critical and direct contradiction regarding the evaluation criteria ('relative_weighting' vs. 'cost (100%)'). This fundamental inconsistency makes the tender documentation unreliable on a key aspect of the bidding process.

The tender description explicitly mentions 'energiasäästlikkus' (energy efficiency) as a requirement, which is a positive green procurement aspect. It is also EU-funded, which often encourages higher sustainability standards. However, there are no other explicit mentions of broader environmental criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus.