Tallinna pinkide hange oli suunatud konkreetsetele toodetele

Tallinna pinkide hange oli suunatud konkreetsetele toodetele

EN

Tallinn's bench tender was directed at specific products

uuris i pinkide ja välikäimlate hankeid. Sisekontroll leidis, et ametil ei ole piisavat ülevaadet lepingutest. Linnamööbli hankes olid tehtud .
Hanke maksumus oli 5,6 miljonit eurot. Toodete kirjeldused olid väga täpsed, näiteks ja . See tegi võimatuks teiste ettevõtete osalemise.
Hanke võitis Extery OÜ, kes oli ainus pakkuja esimeses osas. Teise osa võitis Dambis Eesti. Sisekontroll leidis, et hanke kirjeldused vastasid nende ettevõtete toodetele. Samaväärsed tooted olid lubatud, kuid praktiliselt võimatu pakkuda.
Sisekontroll märkis, et hankija ei tohi kirjelduses nimetada kindlat tootjat või toodet. See piirab konkurentsi ja võib tekitada ebaõiglaseid eeliseid.
16. juuni seisuga oli kokku 915 000 euro eest. Suurim tellimus oli Extery OÜ-lt 669 000 euro eest. Osad mööblid tuleb ümber paigutada, kuna .
Välikäimlate hange pälvis samuti kriitikat. Keskkonna- ja kommunaalamet korraldas kolm hankemenetlust, kuid kõik olid puudulikud. Esimese hanke võitis Toilet OÜ, kuid hange tühistati. Teine hange lükati tagasi, kuna pakkumused ei vastanud nõuetele. Kolmas hange viidi läbi riigihangete registri väljaspool, mis on vastuolus seadusega.
Sisekontroll soovitas, et parandaks hankemenetlusi. Hanked tuleks planeerida varem ja vältida konkurentsi piiravaid tingimusi.
Tallinn's internal audit investigated the Environment and Public Works Department's tenders for benches and public toilets. The audit found that the department lacks sufficient oversight of contracts. In the city furniture procurement, product descriptions were based on specific companies' products.
The cost of the tender was 5.6 million euros. The product descriptions were very precise, for example, dimensions with millimeter accuracy and exact color codes. This made it impossible for other companies to participate.
The tender was won by Extery OÜ, which was the only bidder in the first part. The second part was won by Dambis Estonia. The audit found that the tender descriptions matched these companies' products. Equivalent products were allowed, but practically impossible to offer.
The audit noted that the procuring entity must not name a specific manufacturer or product in the description. This limits competition and may create unfair advantages.
As of June 16, five orders had been placed for a total of 915,000 euros. The largest order was from Extery OÜ for 669,000 euros. Some furniture needs to be relocated because the installation sites do not meet expectations.
The public toilets tender also received criticism. The Environment and Public Works Department conducted three procurement procedures, but all were deficient. The first tender was won by Toilet OÜ, but the tender was canceled. The second tender was rejected because the bids did not meet the requirements. The third tender was conducted outside the public procurement register, which is contrary to the law.
The audit recommended that the Environment and Public Works Department improve procurement procedures. Tenders should be planned earlier and conditions that limit competition should be avoided.