Differences in repeatability across annex and SDK about eforms-sdk HOT 5 CLOSED

Hi,
Thanks for this information.
The first investigations lead to the following outcome:

Direct award justification (BT-1252, BT-136)
Further investigations are needed as this also involves Business aspects including conditional rules.

Atypical tool (BT-124)
The decision was driven by the uniqueness of the tool (tool name not repeatable), the definition of the BT ("The uniform resource locator (e.g. the web address) which gives unrestricted and full direct access to these tools and devices") which refers to a single URL for all the tools (if multiples would exist) and the standard limitations (cbc:AccessToolsURI is not repeatable).

Subcontracting conditions (BT-65)
The repeatable aspect of the parent node needs to be updated. This will get fixed with SDK 1.9

Accessibility (BT-754)
"BT-754 is not repeatable, as the values in the codelist are mutually exclusive." (cf. https://docs.ted.europa.eu/eforms/latest/schema/procedure-lot-part-information.html#accessibilitySection)

Group Framework Value (BT-556)
This is due to the selected design option.
A group is a separate object with its own properties. This object has been introduced to prevent repetitions and ensure consistency. Instead of associating the Group Framework Value to each individual lot it contains, this value is associated to the Group of lots whose composition (i.e. lots it contains) is also covered by BG-330.

Contract Modification (BT-1501)
In the annex BT-1501 is only about the notice section (Modification Previous Notice Section Identifier) and this is covered with the field BT-1501(s)-Contract whose parent node is repeatable. The Contract Modification Notice has its own Notice ID, and ID of the previous notice is missing, therefore the non-repeatable field BT-1501(n)-Contract has been added

from eforms-sdk.

Hi,
The element identified for BT-1251 is not repeatable in UBL but its parent is, the parent of the field BT-1251-xxx is also the parent of BT-125-xxx; so the difference compared to the annex is that both BT-125 and BT-1251 will need to be repeated together when multiple occurrences of BT-1251 will be needed.

from eforms-sdk.

Direct Award Justification (2nd analysis)

Regarding the Direct Award Justification, there are multiple rules involved, including the following ones:

If Direct Award Justification Code (BT-136) value is equal to "No suitable tenders, requests to participate, or applications were received in response to a previous notice", then Direct Award Justification Previous (BT-1252) must be present. (DG|156)

If Direct Award Justification Code (BT-136) value is equal to "Service contract to be awarded to the winner(s) under the rules of a design contest", then Direct Award Justification Previous (BT-1252) must be present. (DG|157)

If Direct Award Justification Code (BT-136) value is equal to "Partial replacement or extension of existing supplies or installations by the original supplier ordered under the strict conditions stated in the Directive", then Direct Award Justification Previous (BT-1252) must be present. (DG|158)

If Direct Award Justification Code (BT-136) value is equal to "New works or services, constituting a repetition of existing works or services and ordered in accordance with the strict conditions stated in the Directive", then Direct Award Justification Previous (BT-1252) must be present. (DG|159)

When both BT-136 and BT-1252 repeat under a same parent (like suggested by the Regulation Annex) then it is unclear to which code a BT-1252 occurrence would be associated with.
Also the various codes from the rules above aren't quite compatible one with another.
It is currently unclear whether multiple codes are actually expected (which would require the definition of a repeatable BG containing one code BT-136 and multiple procedure references BT-1252) or if actually only one code is expected (the one for the main reason only leading to the direct award), this last option is the most appropriate until the requirements get clarified.

from eforms-sdk.

Thank you for the clarifications!

Last question on repeatability: I see that BT-1251-Lot and BT-1251-Part (Previous Planning Part Identifier) are non-repeatable in eForms, but were repeatable in the Annex. I had a discussion about these fields in #621, but I'm not clear on the difference in repeatability.

from eforms-sdk.

Thank you! That answers all my questions.

from eforms-sdk.