Working Group meeting

Date: 06/02/2024
Participants: Paloma Arillo, Natalie Muric, Giovanni Paolo Sellitto, Dragos Stoica, Pascaline Laure Tchienehom
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Achilles Dougalis

Agenda

  • Present first draft of eSubmission model.

Discussion

  • Regarding issue #https://github.com/OP-TED/ePO/issues/482[482]: Remove link between Procedure and ExclusionGrounds. The following points were discussed:

Whether the exclusion grounds should be at procedure level as this is also the case with the ESPD implementation.
That Exclusion grounds could be bypassed in some rare cases, for example, in the case where a given Lot is to be carried out by convicted people, e.g. gardening services, the exclusion grounds on conviction may be dropped for the given Lot.
When such exceptions happen, the ESPD exclusion grounds will be excluded from the ESPD request. Also, different countries have different rules regarding Exclusion grounds exceptions.
One solution to the issue would be to keep epo:specifiesExclusionGround property and add a new property epo:excludesExclusionGround from epo:Lot to epo:ExclusionGrounds.

h9ykXL8b+Ir7AAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

Epo:ExclusionGround in ePO 4.0.1
Conclusion: The group decided that epo:specifiesExclusionGround will be deleted in future versions of ePO. The above diagram should look like the diagram below in the future:

AXFAqFQqFQKBSKj0EJpkKhUCgUCoXiUlGCqVAoFAqFQqG4VJRgKhQKhUKhUCguFSWYCoVCoVAoFIpLRQmmQqFQKBQKheJSUYKpUCgUCoVCobhUlGAqFAqFQqFQKC4VJZgKhUKhUCgUiktFCaZCoVAoFAqF4lL5v5aQED8jXM++AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

  • Also the natural language statement that the procedure should specify exclusion grounds should be deleted.

  • There is a need for a definition for epo:hasProcurementScopeDividedIntoLot . Even a different name.

    • An alternative name could be: Epo:procedureInvolvesLot or incorporatesLot.

    • There was no mention of epo:hasProcurementScopeDividedIntoLot in previous WG meeting minutes. * A first draft of *eSubmission *model was presented. Specifically:

  • The Submission diagram was presented and modified according to feedback from the WG. The new diagram is the following:

wGg8jGQW6jvnAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

  • New natural language statement was added to the ORSD: "An ESPD response must refer to only one ESPD request".

  • It was decided that we do not need an association from the ESPD Response to epo:Procedure.

  • The Submission economic operator diagram was presented and discussed (see below) .

A+8bwNuFm9iuAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

  • There was a problem with eo-role-type codelist. Also, epo:otherEntity should be renamed reliedUponEntity.

  • There is no candidate in the ESPD. However, if the ESPD is to be used for a DPS, then a candidate should be foreseen and not a tenderer.

  • There will be an alignment project later in the year to align the ESPD and eforms via the EPO.

Action Points

  • The issue #https://github.com/OP-TED/ePO/issues/482[482]: should be closed according to the discussion above.

  • Create a ticket in Github repo: "Find an appropriate definition for epo:hasProcurementScopeDividedIntoLot in ePO 4.1.0, and suggest a new predicate for a new major release if necessary.

  • Add a ticket to change epo:otherEntinty to reliedUponEntity.