Reconstruction of a traffic hazard spot on local road no. 12165 Kärdla – Hausma – Lennujaama tee km 0.03-0.130

This tender for road reconstruction exhibits significant inconsistencies in key areas, particularly regarding evaluation criteria and CPV classification, which undermine its overall quality and transparency. While basic information is provided and electronic submission is supported, these fundamental flaws could impede fair competition and efficient contract execution.

The tender suffers from a critical legal compliance issue due to the incorrect CPV code (9290 for road construction instead of a 45xxxxxx code). Furthermore, the conflicting information regarding evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. 100% lowest price) raises concerns about transparency and adherence to procurement principles.

Clarity is severely impacted by the direct contradiction in evaluation criteria, making it unclear how bids will actually be assessed. Additionally, the contract duration is ambiguously defined, stating both 3 months and '2 months from start order date' plus potential extensions, which creates uncertainty for bidders.

The tender provides all essential information fields and includes a comprehensive set of documents, such as ESPD, contract draft, technical description, and cost list. However, the AI's inability to analyze content within .zip and .xml files limits a full assessment of the detailed completeness of these documents.

While the tender supports e-procurement and its requirements appear generic, the significant inconsistency in evaluation criteria directly impacts fairness. Bidders cannot be certain of the basis for award, which compromises transparency and equal treatment. The lowest price criterion, if consistently applied, would be fair.

The tender supports electronic submission, which is a strong practical aspect. The estimated value and contract duration are provided, though the latter is ambiguous. The lack of a specific contract start date, while common, adds a minor element of uncertainty.

This category scores very low due to multiple critical inconsistencies. The CPV code is incorrect for the described works, the evaluation criteria are contradictory, and the contract duration is ambiguously stated. These fundamental data discrepancies pose significant risks.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation aspects. This is common for smaller-scale infrastructure projects but results in a low score for this specific criterion.