Tender evaluation criteria - including price and non-price breakdown

[practicalparticipation]

Requirement generated from User Research process: R20, R21 and R22.

User needs identified a demand for detail on the evaluation criteria of a tender, including:

• Evaluation criteria broken down between price and non price
• The weight given to different evaluation criteria

This is based on an anti-corruption use-case, where high weight given to certain kinds of evaluation criteria can indicate issues in need of further investigation.

R22 also asks for Scores from All Bidders - such that when bidder details are published it would be possible to know how they scored on assessments against bidding criteria.

[birdsarah]

I would suggest that this may be considered as an extension, as the formal weighting and scoring is not necessarily going to be a feature of all procurements. It will only apply when the selectionCriteria is Best Proposal.

Documenting a score for each bidder is structurally pretty easy as we already have bidder objects, so it would be easy to append the results onto each bidder.

My only caution would be, do we really want to store super detailed information for each bidder, that will probably mean another level of nesting which adds increasingly to the nesting complexity.

[practicalparticipation]

See #78 (and hopefully use-case coming on the mailing list) which does point towards the idea of having 'bids' rather than bidder section, which would generate a level of nesting, but I think an acceptable one.

In flat-formats this would just lead to an additional 'bids' table as long as we keep the meta-data about bids flat, which then also linked to the bidder organization in an organization table.

[birdsarah]

Also see: https://groups.google.com/a/webfoundation.org/d/msg/public-ocds/MV07kV-3S8A/QUWqm7ghwScJ

[LindseyAM]

@practicalparticipation did Mihaly bring this up today as well?

[timgdavies]

This may be possible to handle with the proposed 'Features' extension from #223

[LindseyAM]

I think there was a related comment from myroslav in a different thread #254

[timgdavies]

This will be taken forward via features extension in #223