Working Group meeting

Date: 22/02/2022
Participants: Cecile Guasch, Giorgia Lodi, Natalie Muric, Giovanni Paolo Sellitto
Model editor: Eugeniu Costetchi
Note editor: Andreea Pasăre

Agenda

  • Continue discussing current issues and old decisions related to Amount and related classes.

    • What is the proper way to represent Lots & LotGroup and Tender/TenderLot & TenderLot group? Continue modelling the Tender/TenderLot example in the sandbox.

    • In deciding the above how do awarding, selection and exclusion criteria interplay in the case of Lots and LotGroups. This is important to understand how the TenderLots (and eventually TenderLotGroups) relate to the Lots.

    • What is the proper way to assign phase dependent information to Lot / TenderLot and other Rigid (OntoClean meaning) classes? This brings us back to the value assignments as estimates, awardings. This relates to a large extent to the idea of situations and the reason they were evoked in the first place.

    • List of values: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1siAHrX4ueK5GexJ0N3zMg4oHA4ygYlW0d96ainJw9bQ/edit?usp=sharing

Discussion

Lot and LotGroup

  • When (In which situations) LotGroup is relevant and when it is not?

    • Is the TenderLot relevant for competition/submission/evaluation only and it disappears in the contracts?

  • Does the LotGroup have its own award criteria or reuses those of the composing lots?

  • Is the LotGroup a subclass of Lot? They seem to share lots of attributes in common, and for this reason a common super-class would come in handy for good modelling. For example both of them may have FrameworkAgreementTerms, various criteria, estimatedValues, etc.

  • Then the same applies to TenderLotGroup, if such a class is necessary at all?

Page 11 of F2F-WGM 9th (from 14 of June 2019)

  • It was noted that the award criteria are not dependent upon a group of lots because the award criteria are applied before grouping the lots.

  • The Working Group had troubles understanding the Directive and the eForms concerning the Group of Lots value. It looks like the market could do synergies combining groups of lots but still the award criteria are set for the individual lots. An issue could be raised to eForms once the WG has clarified its findings especially concerning BG 330 Group award which seems to be in contradiction with recital 79 of Directive 2014/24/EU. It was also noted that the ontology covers scenarios that may not exist in all Member States.

Consequence for the model (?):

  • LotGroup is merely a grouping of lots, without many attributes of its own, or …​

  • LotGroup is (almost) like a Lot, which overrides the properties of composing lots. For example, Lot "estimated values" will be overridden by the LotGroup values.

  • SelectionCriteria of a LotGroup can override (take precedence on the sum of the two) the SelectionCriteria of individual Lots or keep the SelectionCriteria of the individualLots.

  • LotGroup is a collection, it is not another type of Lot. It is a mechanism to group lots and differentiate selection criteria.

TenderLot and TenderLotGroup

  • What is the connection between TenderLots to Lots and Groups? Is there a better way of calling the TenderLot?

Current definitions:

  • TenderLot: Part of the tender that applies to the related lot. Additional Information: See also the definitions for Tender and Lot for a complete understanding. (apparently no longer needed)

  • Tender: Information submitted by the economic operator to specify its offer regarding one or more lots or the whole procedure, in response to the call for tender. (WG approval 07/11/2018)

    • The common part that is submitted, in the case of multiple submissions by the same tenderer, is moved elsewhere (i.e. ESPD response, which has to be submitted anyway each time including the exclusion ground) and therefore we no longer need this generalisation. Thus we can merge the Tender and TenderLot classes.

Decision: Investigate if/how we can delete the TenderLot class?
Decision: no need for TenderLotGroup.

Business terms that indicate values

Additional notes:

Presenting the instance example for tender with selection criterion.

With the new ESPD they have to reuse the same exclusion criteria for each TenderLot.

Exclusion Grounds are at the level of Procedure.

The financial and technical Award Criteria are to be set at the level of each Lot.

LotGroup can have the same kind of characteristics as Lots. The cardinalities are different.

One Lot has just one offer per each Selection Criteria.

A LotGroup can have its own Selection Criteria that overrides the SelectionCriteria for each of the Lots or keep the ones from each Lot.

AwardCriteria will be the same for LotGroup as the ones for each Lot.

We will need to go for a different granularity for ESPD in the case of FinancialOffer.

Award Criteria are actually questions.

The Financial Offer is per Lot.

Presenting a real world example of a tender at instance level.

T+vWIEmbeaiUgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

Delivery example diagram

c9X5OTdk9QwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

Competition diagram:

B2xgBSgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

epo:hasEstimatedValue should be the same in all procurement phases.

  1. Corrigendum: The estimated value might change only if a corrigendum notice is instantiated.

  2. Should we accept to extend the definition of an object previously announced? (for example Lot) It’s a good practice that once an object is instantiated they should not be modified, but only referred to. (ex: Lot hasEstimatedValue and Lot hasAwardedValue; awarded value should not be a property of a lot but of something else)

Decision: Put all the BGs in the value type spreadsheet.

wHFuCLgXOz46QAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==