Idea competition for the design and implementation of two outdoor learning environments in Hiiumaa

This tender for outdoor learning space design and implementation is generally well-structured with clear objectives and electronic submission. However, the highly subjective evaluation methodology, relying solely on a jury's decision without clear weighting, significantly impacts fairness and clarity.

The tender generally complies with national regulations, specifying mandatory exclusion grounds and providing reasonable deadlines. However, the ambiguity in the evaluation criteria, particularly the '100% based on jury decision' without clear weighting, poses a potential legal risk regarding transparency and objectivity.

The project description, objectives, and submission requirements are clear and well-documented. However, the clarity is significantly undermined by the vague evaluation methodology, which states a jury decision without detailing how the listed criteria will be objectively weighted and scored.

Most essential information, including title, organization, value, and deadlines, is provided, and all relevant documents are attached. However, the tender lacks explicit financial requirements for bidders and a formal 'contract duration' field, although the project timeline is clear.

Electronic submission and reasonable deadlines promote equal access. However, the evaluation criteria's reliance on a '100% jury decision' without transparent weighting or scoring methodology introduces significant subjectivity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be objectively compared, thus impacting fairness.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract start date is known. However, the implementation timeline for both design and build (March 2 to June 30) is quite tight, potentially posing practical challenges for bidders. The lack of explicit funding source beyond the estimated value is also a minor point.

Key fields are generally populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no detected disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include 'N/A' codes for procedure type and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag alongside a disclosed estimated value, as well as slight ambiguity between two evaluation criteria documents.

The tender explicitly states 'Green Procurement,' which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks explicit social criteria and a clear focus on innovation beyond the inherent nature of a design competition. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.