Working Group meeting
Date: 05/11/2024
Participants: Ioannis Fountoukidis, Natalie Muric
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Grzegorz Kostkowski
Agenda
-
Presentation of proposed changes for Tender Clarification Request (T0009) and Tender Clarification (T010) in the CM diagrams and collecting the feedback.
Discussions
It was explained that a Tender Clarification is not a Procurement Document. Modelling it as such is incorrect due to its limited visibility (availability) compared to the public nature of Procurement Documents.
The WG agreed to introduce the following changes:
-
epo:TenderClarification and epo:TenderClarificationRequest were changed to both inherit from epo:Document.
-
The new epo:specifiesTenderer association was introduced between epo:TenderClarificationRequest and epo:Tenderer.
-
The decision to replace epo:EconomicOperator with epo:Tenderer was made.
-
Proposal
-
Analysis of cac:AdditionalDocumentReference in PEPPOL docs. The WG analysed a relevant example RDF in PEPPOL documentation and found that there is one tender clarification and each answer is an attachment. It was further identified that each response needs to be an annex to a tender clarification:
It was also observed that it is possible to provide a file and reference it in a cac:Attachment entity:
The accepted version of the diagram:
-
The WG discussed representation of the epo-sub:Response value.
The proposal was to store it in a dedicated instance of cccev:SupportedValue:
The motivation behind the proposal was discussed. It was explained that it was inspired by the CCCEV model.
The WG decided to model that in another way. It was decided to store a response value as a new optional attribute. The dct:description was chosen for that purpose and a new attribute for epo-sub:Response was added:
-
The WG reviewed the eEvaluation ORSD document. It was confirmed that all identified roles described in the document need to be modelled.
Action Points
-
Redo pre-award mappings for tender clarification request and response:
-
Recreate associations between cccev:InformationRequirement and epo:LotGroup, epo:Lot and epo:Procedure (epo:concernsLotGroup, epo:concernsLot, epo:concernsProcedure) as described in the #707 ticket. The work is required to accommodate for the following term:
-
Discuss in pre-award meeting about the modifications (model and mappings) we’ve made taking into account the following:
-
What cac:ParentDocumentReference is? It may be a Call for Tender – to verify
-
-
Model roles and user stories as defined in the eEvaluation ORSD document for the next WG meeting (12/11/2024).
