Working Group meeting
Date: 22/10/2024
Participants: Natalie Muric, Giovanni Paolo Sellito
Model editor: Achilles Dougalis
Note editor: Grzegorz Kostkowski
Agenda
-
Discuss the use of the “Commission” term. During a previous WG meeting, it was noted that a term used in the document might be inappropriate. Consider the two alternative terms instead: Evaluation Committee and Jury in the case of a Design Context.
-
Review and continue work on eEvaluation ORSD document.
-
Work on PEPPOL T09 and T010.
Discussion
-
Changes made during the last session (two weeks ago) in Evaluation ORSD document were reviewed.
-
Roles involved section was reviewed and refined:
-
Occurrences of” Designed Contest” term were replaced with the Jury term.
-
“Admitted Candidates” role has been renamed to “Selected Candidates”.
-
It was explained that the "relied upon" phrase describes a role that refers to an entity that only lends characteristics needed to meet selection criteria in the context of the evaluation process.
-
It was explained that there are two groups of subcontractors: those that rely on entities and those that do not.
-
It was pointed out that before a contract is signed, it is not correct to use a Contractor term and the relevant party should be named as a” foreseen Contractor” instead.
-
It was refined that a Winner is such an entity whose Tender has been awarded.
-
A distinction between a Buyer organization and a person acting on behalf of the Buyer was introduced. A new role called Unique Responsible for the Procurement was defined. It’s a person that is legally responsible for the procurement procedure on a Buyer’s side.
-
Some occurrences of the Buyer role in the document were replaced with Unique Responsible for the Procurement role.
-
-
Activity description section was reviewed and expanded:
-
It was decided to use the Buyer term instead of the Contractor Authority.
-
Commission term was renamed to Evaluation committee.
-
It was clarified that winning Tenders are awarded, not Winners themselves.
-
The description was extended to include the following statement:
-
It was explained that the checking is done only for the Winner and the second-ranked bidder before signing the Contract (award decision).
-
It was specified what is evaluated during the evaluation process:
It was clarified that an award decision is signed by a Unique Responsible for the Procurement.
-
Use case section was reviewed and modified:
-
“Evaluation Committee” was renamed to “Jury”.
-
It was clarified that in a design contest, the design itself is evaluated, not the tender.
-
-
User stories section was reviewed and modified:
-
Missing user stories concerning Unique Responsible for the Procurement were added. Added ones referred to selected Tenders, excluded Tenders, points given to a Tender based on a selection Criteria.
-
-
Natural language sentences section was reviewed and modified:
-
A Tender is evaluated before capabilities and Ground Exclusion Criteria. It was stated that the ordering varies between countries as it depends on law. It was decided to consult other WG member to confirm the following statement:
-
Winner was replaced with winning Tender
-
It was confirmed that the object of the modelling task is the evaluation report. As a consequence, some rules that had been defined may be out of scope.
