Procurement of Technical Maintenance Service for the object at Küti st 6, Tallinn

This tender for technical maintenance services is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements and electronic submission, but suffers from a critical inconsistency regarding evaluation criteria and a potentially restrictive mandatory site visit.

The tender demonstrates good adherence to national procurement regulations, including reasonable deadlines and the use of ESPD. However, the procedure type is defined using internal codes rather than standard classifications, which could cause minor ambiguity.

While the technical specifications and general requirements are clearly articulated, there is a significant and critical contradiction between the stated "relative_weighting" evaluation criteria in the basic information and the explicit "lowest price receives maximum points" in the evaluation criteria document. This fundamental inconsistency severely impacts clarity.

The tender provides all essential information, including detailed requirements, financial estimates, and a comprehensive set of documents. However, the inconsistency in evaluation criteria detracts from the overall completeness of a coherent tender package.

The inclusion of an "or equivalent" clause and support for e-procurement enhance fairness. However, the mandatory physical site visit with a signed confirmation, while legally compliant under RHS § 111 lg 6, poses a significant practical barrier that could limit participation from a broader range of bidders, especially SMEs or those not locally based. The contradictory evaluation criteria also reduce transparency.

Electronic submission is a positive aspect, but the mandatory physical site visit and signed confirmation requirement introduces a substantial logistical and cost burden for potential bidders, significantly reducing the practicality of participation for many.

This category presents the most significant concern due to the direct contradiction between the "relative_weighting" evaluation criteria mentioned in the basic characteristics and the "lowest price" stated in the detailed evaluation criteria document. This is a critical inconsistency that could lead to confusion, disputes, and potential legal challenges.

The tender explicitly includes "Green Procurement" as a characteristic, which is a positive step. However, it lacks specific criteria or focus on social aspects or innovation, and is not identified as EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.