Working Group meeting
Date: 14/19/2024
Participants: Danciu Cristian, Ioannis Fountoukidis, Catia Miguel, Giovanni Paolo Sellito, Bentivogli Vitoro
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Achilles Dougalis
Discussions
The following diagram representing the different roles that take part in the eEvaluation process was presented:
-
It was agreed that the epo:LeadBuyer is a different concept than the epo-eva:UniqueResponsibleOfTheProcurement. The former is a Legal person (Organization), while the latter is a natural Person.
-
The epo-eva:Evaluator and epo:JuryMember are also natural Persons, so together with eva:UniqueResponsibleOfTheProcurement are played by a person:Person.
-
It was discussed whether we need to create epo:SelectedCandidate and epo:ExcludedCandidate.
-
It was argued whether we need an epo:ExcludedCandidateList in the eEvaluation module. If so, it needs to be removed from the eEvaluation ORSD. To be further discussed in a future meeting.
-
It was discussed whether we need to model each different member of the epo-eva:EvaluationCommittee as mentioned in the eEvaluation ORSD. To be further discussed in a future meeting.
-
Regarding epo:RelliedUponEntity and epo:NonReliedUponEntities, it was discussed that epo:NonReliedUponEntities should be a specialization of epo-eva:ForeseenSubcontractor
The following diagram representing the Activity description of the eEvaluation ORSD was discussed:
-
It was agreed that the epo-eva:EvaluationCommittee is appointed by epo-eva:UniqueResponsibleOfTheProcurement.
-
It was discussed if an epo:Tender has to be connected to an epo-eva:TechnicalOffer. The answer is that this is not mandatory, so the predicate epo:isSupportedBy should have a cardinality of 0..1
-
It was discussed whether an epo:Tender should be supported by more than one epo-sub:Espd responses, because currently this is modelled as a relation with cardinality of 1.
-
epo-eva:EvaluationFormula rdf:PlainLiteral attribute was added to the epo-eva:EvaluationReport. It was argued that maybe a controlled vocabulary could be used. See here . A formula should also be a criterion.
-
It was mentioned that the epo-eva:EvaluationReport is very similar to the epo:TenderAwardOutcome.
-
It was discussed whether the evaluation and the award criteria should be different concepts.
-
After the meeting the Activity description diagram looked like this.
Action Points
-
Investigate why a Tender is supported by only one ESPD response.
-
It was mentioned that the epo-eva:EvaluationReport is very similar to the epo:TenderAwardOutcome. To be decided in the future if we need to keep both of these concepts.
-
Investigate if a controlled vocabulary could be used for representing the formula. See here .
-
Could the evaluation and the award criteria be different ? To be discussed in the next meeting.
