Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS

[paulakeen]

About the Turnovers two change-requests have been issued by a Member State:

1. "General" Turnovers, like in IV.B.1.a) or IV.B.1.b), the turnovers structure (i) should cater for multiple and unlimited (dynamic) cardinality; and (ii) should allow the specification of either a period of time (reference to a temporal flow, e.g. financial year/period) or to specific date of stock;
2. "Specific" Turnovers, like in IV.B.2.a) or IV.B.2.b) should (i) cater for multiple and unlimited (dynamic) cardinality; and (ii) should allow the specification of the scope of the contract (i.e. the business area covered by the contract).

As you can see in the image below, the current version 1.0.2 does not provide placeholders for these data:

1. To attend change requests nbr. 1 there is not need of changing the XSD Schema, but a new "data structure" (i.e. organisation of requirement groups and requirements in the XML instance) needs to be provided. The diagram below would illustrate how this data structure would look like according to the method used in the document "ESPD Exchange Data Model (ESPD-EDM). ESPD Response XML Instantiation Guide, v.1.0.2":

1. Again, to attend change request nbr. 2 there is no need of changing the XSD Schema, but to specify a new data structure like the one below. In this case the proposal to specify the business area covered by the contract is to use one or possibly several CPV codes, as a combination of CPVs can help to better restrict the scope of the contract:

[ESPD]

Notepad notes

• Companies need to give the fiscal year which can be different from the annual year
  • No need for CAs to define this
• In some countries profit/loss should be as well provided next to the turnover
  • CA need to select that profit/loss should be provided

General turnover would allow the following:

• Turnover
• Selection Gross/Net (optional)
• Profit (optional)
• Loss (optional)

Laura will check use of profit/loss

CPV codes for specific turnover

• Each lot can have its own CPV code which are defined in the notice
• There can be multiple specific turnovers for each lot
• There could be the case that for one lot the specific turnover is asked and for another lot only the general yearly turnover
• A CA might ask for both at the same time

[ESPD]

Chat notes from Adobe

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: In order to cater for Economic Operators Whose financial year doesnt end on Dec 31, my suggestion was to allow for referring every turnover to a "period" (star date-end date) timeframe

Rudolf: "Specific" Turn over, you need: (1) the time period year either "2015" or "from" 1.4.2015 "to" 31.3.2016 and the specification, for example "building of office buildings" or "road construction". You don't need "profits". The turn over shows the capacity of an EO in a certain field of activities. This is the key issue for the CA. To break the activites down to CPV-codes is difficult. it down to

Laura Martin: We usually ask for period data not calendar year

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: the use of CPVs nicely matches the Contract Notice

Laura Martin: yes, most of the time

Laura Martin: we would ask for both profit and loss

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: In Spain no profit/loss is usually used

Laura Martin: there is no set method - its up to each contracting authority to decide

Lois Devey 2: England ask for accounts or if that can't be provided then turnover, profit loss balance sheet or alternative method of cash flow forecast

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I do not think profit/Loss is a relevant measure for financial solvency

Laura Martin: Its varies so much between each authority, its difficult to say

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Profi/Losss is the document that attests turnoner and other data for the financial year

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I mispelled turnover

Lois Devey 2: In the standard Selection Questions we have a tiered approach- so first can they provide the audited accounts? If not can they provide the turnover, profit loss and if they can't do that can they provide a statement of cash flow forecast - finally can they provide an alternative means of demonstrating financial status.

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Ther requirement is: TURNOVER, The attestation is "ANNUAL ACCOUNTS/ PROFIT & LOSS STATEMENT"

Rudolf: The turnover is for showing the capacity of the EO to take on a certain contract. The EC directive 2014 sa that the CA may not ask for a turn over which exceeds the estimated doubled value of the contract to be given.

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: There may be other requirements chosen by the C.A., but I have never heard of "Profit" as the chosen one

Rudolf: Jose is right. The profit may be seen in the balance sheets but the aim of the CA is the turnover.

Laura Martin: Yeah, that sounds good

Lois Devey 2: yes happy with that

Rudolf: For the proof of the financial standing of the EO the CA may ask for balance sheets.

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Right, the financial accounts are the proof, the turnover is the data to be attested

Maria Font: @from the modelling perspective this would be solved by the possibility of attaching "evidences" to the criterion...the model wouldn't be affected

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: P&L statement has many data, but the criteria must point to a particular one

Laura Martin: yeah, thats correct

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: either Turnover, EBITDA, current liabilities, etc

Rudolf: The dilemma is: on one hand it is good to have a broad spectrum e.g. turn over plus profit, on the other hand in would be missleading to the Austrian CA to the in ESPD the possibility to ask fpor the profit

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: or a ratio (eg liquidity ratio)

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: If we look for max flexibility, we can accept any chosen Financial data, properly identified by the CA

Rudolf: OK

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: something like "label/value"

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: eg Label= turnover Value = 1000 eur

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Profit/Loss means two different things: a) P&L statement (complete), b) the net profit in the year (single amount)

Rudolf: Sorry, I have to leave for an other appointment. Thank you.

Laura Martin: Can you repeat MC, the sound cut out?

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I thing that in order to avoid misunderstandings, we should take dedinitions from authoritative source.

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Both profits can be relevant

Laura Martin: I am not sure, sorry

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: in fact I believe that most single data are not very significant

Lois Devey 2: I'm also having to check what CA do.

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Good practice is to see the whole document. The advantage of turnover is being quite straightforward

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: and less prone to financial engineering

Maria Font: sorry, Enric and I have to leave now...bye

Laura Martin: Yeah, of course

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Profit and Loss are the same but the sign

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: son no need for both

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I understand that CPV provides the scope for the turnover

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: so it is an attribute of the requirement "specific tuinover"

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: sorry turnover

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: different lots -> different reuirements

Laura Martin: yeah, i think so

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: every lot must have its set of requirements

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: the last one sounds strange but...

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: that last one sounds logical

Laura Martin: yeah, that sounds correct

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: Not when several lots, but I would not discard the case of asking both when single lot (no lots)

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I would not use both, but perhaps someone ...

Laura Martin: sure, I will find out and add it to Github

Lois Devey 2: No

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: I apologize but I have lost the commm several times and my sound was horrible

Lois Devey 2: bye

Jose Luis Cueva -Spain: bye, thank

Laura Martin: Thank you, bye!

[lauramrtn]

@ec-mcs I spoke to our Finance Department regarding the evaluation of Profit and Loss Statements. They said they would review both Gross and Net Profit as they are both useful for different purposes. Hope this helps.

[paulakeen]

About the TURNOVER-GENERAL: In line with the discussions and the feed-back provided by @lauramrtn we herein present this other data-structure (beware that the XSD-Schema is not impacted; this proposal would impact on (i) the user-GUI interfaces, ii) the XML instances, and (iii) the business rules, currently expressed in Schematron):

[ec-mcs]

We should include the requirements from the CA (in this case number of years).

[ec-mcs]

CA needs to provide
Options for one and two stage procedures:

1. Provide turnover for the last years (no of years)
2. Minimum turnover (min turnover provided by CA)

EO needs to provide

1. Turnover for the last years as requested
2. Answer YES/NO, exact turnover

[ec-mcs]

Comments from the chat room

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: greetings from swowy Helsinki

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: Hello everybody! Let's start at 13:03

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: CA cannot really define a period for turnover (end start and end dates) as period can be defined by individual EO. offensiivin it is calendar year but not always...

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: ok

Rudolf: Is there anything said concerning the profit in the EC Directives? I know just some statement concerning the turnover.

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: period must be provided by EO, according to its own fiscal yeay

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: what is that code boing in the model ? is this the Spanish codicio?

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: doing

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: which code?

Rudolf: If so, also the national procurement law will not speak about the profit. Contractinga uthorities would be on thin ice demanding the profit daa from the Econoimic Operators

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Sometimes, a "verification code" (hash, etc) must be provided for access the document

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: I think it is unusual to use profit as criterion, but cannnot discard someone can use it in Spain

Steve Patterson: financil's are usually pass/fail

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: sorry, my micro does no t work

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: The issue I see is: this model is OK but it is not flexible enough if different financial parameters are used by different C.A.s

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes - this is a way to do it in two way procedures

Steve Patterson: Correct

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: turnover is not often relevant

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: to be evaluated in this way

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yep!

Steve Patterson: In Scotland we would usually only score/weiight the Technical & Professional ability section in a 2 stage procedure, but cleartly there may be different approaches in other MS

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: we do the same way as in Scotland

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: we do not give points to turnover

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: it is irrelevant how much over the

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: minimum the company is

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes

Rudolf: Turnover is not realy suitable as a selection criteria as the directives say that the temanded turnover should niot go beyond double the summe of the contracte to be awarded. Turnover can be used as KO criteria.

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: fine

Steve Patterson: yes

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: the weighting that you are showing now

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: suits technical & professional ability

Steve Patterson: They might still provide the amount in a 1 stage procedure

Steve Patterson: They could stil set a minimum amount in an Open, yes

Rudolf: The minimum turnover can be used as a criteria for the eligibility.

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: do you exceed 1 mill on both 1 and 2 stage procedures

Steve Patterson: yes

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: always CA must define the. inimum

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes

Steve Patterson: Agree with Timo

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: yes

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: no but sometimes yes

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: :-)

Steve Patterson: They need to have that ability

Rudolf: The Directiv states that the demanded turnover should not go beyond the double amount of the contract t o be awarded. Therefore the turnover is hardly suitable as a selection criteria

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Do not agree

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: agree with Rudolf

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: As selection criteria, the CA sets the threshold for pass/fail

Rudolf: That is a missunderstanding pass/fall are the minimum criterias. Selection criterias are used to choose a certain number of EO out of those who had past the KO criteria.

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: It is a selection criterion: only those over the threshold lwill pass

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: to Q2 the EO may need to answer with yes / no and sometimes also state the exact turnover

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Ok now I agree with Rudolf. It is a pass/fail selection

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: EO should be capable of providing the exact turnover/period for the period(s) requested by the CA

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: and a field for exact turnover

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: M-C, could you speak louder, or adjust micro? I can hardly hear you

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: For reusability it is much beter to provide exact turnover

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: OK

Rudolf: The answer YES/NO at the EO side is not necessury. If the EO says "NO" he is out.

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: we have done self-contained ESPD to our eTendering system and it's in English also. maybe it would help if I share some screenshots with you... over the email.

Steve Patterson: The advice from our accountancy people was that they could potentaialy use both

Rudolf: Why not put the profit as NAtional Criteria?

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: In my opinion "profit" is not a good measure of financial standing

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Profit in a given year, even less

Steve Patterson: Agree with Jose - it's never used on it's own

Rudolf: I agree with Jose. Also there are various accounting systems in place.

Rudolf: If a company is investing more than others the profit level will be lawer.

Steve Patterson: It's not used on it's own as a sole measure of financial stability

Steve Patterson: I think "national criteria" should be reseved for those things that are national legal requirements

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: I have never seen profit being used. I can wary hugely and even big companies can e.g because of product failure make a loss in a year. examples Samsung and VW

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: hahha

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes yes!

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: one thing is "profit and loss statement" (whole doc) and another is "profit" as single data

Steve Patterson: MC, I just emailed you the advice we got from our accountants

Rudolf: THis statement is to prove the economic and financial ability of the company and it is a pass/fail ciriteria but not suitable as selection criteria.

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: in this case they are mixing differens criteria

Steve Patterson: Theat would come later as part of the evidence

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: I can check in Spain 8in our portal)

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: I will check for "turnover" and "profit" in particular

Rudolf: We will also look in our database.

Timo Rantanen - Hansel - Finland: yes

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: If amount is provided, can be reused, if Yes/not, it must be redone for every bid

[ec-mcs]

A comment from Rudolf/AT

Turn Over as a Selection Criteria

Research in the ANKÖ database brought the following results:
The Selection Criteria are mostly part of the tender documents and not part of the contract notices. Here some examples:

1. Turnover of the last three years
2. Average yearly turnover of the last three years € 1,000.000,00 or more
3. Minimum average yearly turnover of the last three financial years € 500.000,00 exclusive taxes
4. Declaration of the turnover over the last three years
5. Insurance for a minimum of € 1,500.000,00 (Deckungssumme)

The Directive mentions only “Selection Criteria”. Infact there are two kinds of Selection Criteria and therefore also used different terms e.g. in Austrian procurement law:
A) Suitability/Eligibility Criteria (Eignungskriterien) to prove the suitability of the Economic Operator (pass or fail criteria)
versus
B) Selection Criteria (Auswahlkriterien) to choose the best Economic Operators out of those who met the Suitability Criteria (e.g. the best five Economic Operators) – for a twostep procedure
The turnover is often used as a Suitability Criteria to have evidence of the capacity of the EO to fulfill the contract. This is exactly also what is stated in the Directive (s. excerpt below). The Directive states that the turnover put as pass or fail criteria by the Contracting Authority should not extend the double sum estimated for the respective contract.
To use one criteria, in our case the turnover, as Suitability Criteria and as Selection Criteria is in most cases not allowed. To use the turnover as a selection criteria makes in my understanding not so much sense as it is not necessarily a proof of better quality when one EO has three times more turnover than another.

Article 58
Selection criteria
[…]
3. With regard to economic and financial standing, contracting authorities may impose requirements ensuring that economic operators possess the necessary economic and financial capacity to perform the contract. For that purpose, contracting authorities may require, in particular, that economic operators have a certain minimum yearly turnover, including a certain minimum turnover in the area covered by the contract. In addition, contracting authorities may require that economic operators provide information on their annual accounts showing the ratios, for instance, between assets and liabilities. They may also require an appropriate level of professional risk indemnity insurance.

The minimum yearly turnover that economic operators are required to have shall not exceed two times the estimated contract value, except in duly justified cases such as relating to the special risks attached to the nature of the works, services or supplies. The contracting authority shall indicate the main reasons for such a requirement in the procurement documents or the individual report referred to in Article 84.

The ratio, for instance, between assets and liabilities may be taken into consideration where the contracting authority specifies the methods and criteria for such consideration in the procurement documents. Such methods and criteria shall be transparent, objective and non-discriminatory
[…]

Link zum PDF:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024&qid=1478186385236&from=DE

[ec-mcs]

We will only model turnover. Financial ratios cover profit so no need for them here.

[ec-mcs]

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): We would usually put the selection criteria in the contract notice at the moment, however we may not need to o so once the ESPD is self-contained

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): The Directive allows it to be used, but on it's own it's not a good measure of financial stability

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Our understanding is that selection criteria are pass/fail. All EO passing the thereshold must be accepted.

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: But I undrestand this is not the interpretation in other cases, then the "weighting"

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): in Scotland, we would uonly weight the technical and professional ability section

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Of course there might be several criteria, then several thersholds

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): A public body would usually not specify a specific value of profit “up font”, but may seek evidence that a company has been in profit, .e.g. by asking to see accounts as evidence later

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): They make a general statement about being in profit for examplefor the last 3 years, but I don;'t think we need t o specify a value.

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): yes

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Suggestion: provide an element "placeholder" where the CA specify the accounting concept (standard) used and the thereshold

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: It is flexible and standaRD

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): I know we don't like free text, but would it be possible for the CA to say something in free text about profitability

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: use standard "accounting labels"

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: As defined in European Accountinh Standar

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: May add something?

Timo Rantane / Hansel / Finland: yes, please!

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: AFAIK There is an EU regulation that sets the official reference for accounting "labels and meanings".

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: I will look for it

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: All accounting statements refer to a date/period

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): Turnover is directly relevant to the contract value, but profitis not. \my concernis that specifying a vkue would disproportionately favour bigger companies over small ones.

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: I think even if profit is used it will be used as a ratio, for avoiding bias on big/small firms

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): it is used in ter,ms of assessing generall financial stability, but it is not used as a specific value

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Eg: profit/turnover, profit/assets, profit/net value

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): okay

Zilvaras: Thank You

Steve Patterson (Scottish Government): Thank you - bye!

Enric Staromiejski (GROW): bye

Jose Luis Cueva - Spain: Thank you very much, bye

wojcida: Thank you

Hilde Kjølset, Difi - Norway: Bye

Timo Rantane / Hansel / Finland: ciao

wojcida: by

[JoseLuisCueva]

In Spain (AFAIK) Profit is not used as criterion, but Equity is used often.

[paulakeen]

According to the last discussion, possible mock-ups for the Turnovers could be:

• Global Turnovers, CA viewpoint:

• Global Turnovers, EO viewpoint:

• Specific Turnovers, CA viewpoint:

• Specific Turnovers, EO viewpoint:

[paulakeen]

For the Turnovers, the Data Structure diagrams would be the following:

• 1) Turnover General:

• 2) Turnover Specific:

[rantati7]

Another mock-up on how CA presents turnover requirement.

[ec-mcs]

Thx for the mockup. It means we must provide the CA the possibility to say if they want to ask for a minimum requirement. The currency could be asked only once.

[rantati7]

Another mock-up from EO's viewpoint

[paulakeen]

The screen-capture below shows a fragment of the XML example (first turnover) for a General Turnover. A complete distribution with the entire XML file will distributed once the discussions finished:

The screen-capture below shows a fragment of the XML example for a Specific Turnover. A complete distribution with the entire XML file will distributed once the discussions finished (ZOOM IN to enhance readability):

[ec-mcs]

If the CA set's the currency, there should be no possibility for the EO to change it?

[JoseLuisCueva]

The EO should be able to report its financial data (turnover or any other) in its own accounting currency, regardless of the currency stated by the CA. The appropiate conversion rates (for verification of selection criteria compliance) will be applied by the CA at "selection time" by using the conversion rules established in every case (for instance, average exchange rate for the period reported, as officially computed an publishe by the National Bank). Therefore it will be two independent data for every item (eg annual turnover for last year): - requirement (threshold) as stated by the CA (amount type: number, currency) - actual value for the EO reporting its ESPD (number, currency, period) This is as I see it. Best regards Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 7/12/16 10:43 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) If the CA set's the currency, there should be no possibility for the EO to change it? � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvEVWxSBhZcSnMgbeM8byuGAKVUG_ks5rFn-MgaJpZM4KZxum>.

[rantati7]

This is indeed a bit tricky. I agree that EO should be able to change the currency. But then somewhere there should be rules how the exchange will be carried out. Timo Timo Rantanen Hansel Oy PL 1386, 00101 Helsinki (Mannerheiminaukio 1 A) Matkapuhelin 0294 444 250 timo.rantanen@hansel.fi<mailto:timo.rantanen@hansel.fi> www.hansel.fi<http://www.hansel.fi/> Teemme yhdessä onnistuneita hankintoja. Lähettäjä: JoseLuisCueva [mailto:notifications@github.com] Lähetetty: 7. joulukuuta 2016 13:07 Vastaanottaja: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Kopio: Rantanen Timo <Timo.Rantanen@hansel.fi>; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Aihe: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) The EO should be able to report its financial data (turnover or any other) in its own accounting currency, regardless of the currency stated by the CA. The appropiate conversion rates (for verification of selection criteria compliance) will be applied by the CA at "selection time" by using the conversion rules established in every case (for instance, average exchange rate for the period reported, as officially computed an publishe by the National Bank). Therefore it will be two independent data for every item (eg annual turnover for last year): - requirement (threshold) as stated by the CA (amount type: number, currency) - actual value for the EO reporting its ESPD (number, currency, period) This is as I see it. Best regards Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> Fecha: 7/12/16 10:43 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com<mailto:ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com>> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es<mailto:joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com<mailto:comment@noreply.github.com>> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) If the CA set's the currency, there should be no possibility for the EO to change it? � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvEVWxSBhZcSnMgbeM8byuGAKVUG_ks5rFn-MgaJpZM4KZxum>. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTSAFDYgWRnD4K92RqTvv2r_YceHc0Lks5rFpNJgaJpZM4KZxum>.

[ec-mcs]

I spoke with Claudio:

• The EO must use the currency of his country because this information he can prove through the accounts
• The CA will use the conversion rate at the time of evaluation

This means that it is a feature of the ESPD service to calculate the currency of the EO at the time of filling out the ESPD but this information should not be stored in my opinion

[ec-mcs]

One question about the minimum requirement: Is it normal that the CA provides a minimum turnover for several years? Would they provide rather one that is the same for some years?

[JoseLuisCueva]

I agree wit Claudio. No calculation needed in the ESPD service. Just have a place for each data item. Un saludo/best regards Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 7/12/16 12:44 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) I spoke with Claudio: * The EO must use the currency of his country because this information he can prove through the accounts * The CA will use the conversion rate at the time of evaluation This means that it is a feature of the ESPD service to calculate the currency of the EO at the time of filling out the ESPD but this information should not be stored in my opinion � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvCzhQVATn1cWliMuDDN0fLhKr6Neks5rFpv0gaJpZM4KZxum>.

[rantati7]

Agree... no conversion in ESPD. Definately no! Timo Timo Rantanen Hansel Oy PL 1386, 00101 Helsinki (Mannerheiminaukio 1 A) Matkapuhelin 0294 444 250 timo.rantanen@hansel.fi<mailto:timo.rantanen@hansel.fi> www.hansel.fi<http://www.hansel.fi> Teemme yhdessä onnistuneita hankintoja. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:49 PM +0200, "JoseLuisCueva" <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote: I agree wit Claudio. No calculation needed in the ESPD service. Just have a place for each data item. Un saludo/best regards Jos? Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 7/12/16 12:44 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos? Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) I spoke with Claudio: * The EO must use the currency of his country because this information he can prove through the accounts * The CA will use the conversion rate at the time of evaluation This means that it is a feature of the ESPD service to calculate the currency of the EO at the time of filling out the ESPD but this information should not be stored in my opinion ? You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvCzhQVATn1cWliMuDDN0fLhKr6Neks5rFpv0gaJpZM4KZxum>. - You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTSAA-RqqnakjjL317tI8haNEaB5vhiks5rFp1XgaJpZM4KZxum>.

[JoseLuisCueva]

I believe that the CA can set a threshold for: A given year (usually last year) OR Average annual turnover for a given period (no longer than three years) In both cases, single threshold. Un saludo/best regards Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 7/12/16 12:47 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) One question about the minimum requirement: Is it normal that the CA provides a minimum turnover for several years? Would they provide rather one that is the same for some years? � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvMHTM8wPIexTm5YtYtEfm7YuQr1Wks5rFpyNgaJpZM4KZxum>.

[lauramrtn]

Thanks for the clarification. We will make sure this is reflected in our guidance.

[ec-mcs]

Conclusion:
Yearly turnover

• CA provides number of years (1 - 5) and 1 miminum requirement (meaning the EO must meet this requirement in all years)
• EO provides figures for each year

Average turnover

• CA like yearly turnover
• EO provides one turnover (average)

Other requirements

• The currency of the country of the EO could change, therefore the currency should be selectable for each year

• The EO must use the currency of his country because this information he can prove through the accounts

• The CA will use the conversion rate at the time of evaluation

[JoseLuisCueva]

I agree, with the remark that the CA can request turnover for at most the last three years (AFAIK). So providing place for up to 3 years may suffice. Best regards. Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Marc Christopher Schmidt <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 7/12/16 13:38 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) Conclusion: Yearly turnover * CA provides number of years (1 - 5) and 1 miminum requirement (meaning the EO must meet this requirement in all years) * EO provides figures for each year Average turnover * CA like yearly turnover * EO provides one turnover (average) * The currency of the country of the EO could change, therefore the currency should be selectable for each year * In part 1 of ESPD the Lots should be provided. The CA can then in the specific (yearly/average turnover) define for each lot which turnover must be met. � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvBKz_tKrIRYCRF0U41rUyb_X75Z2ks5rFqiHgaJpZM4KZxum>.

[ec-mcs]

Steve Patterson (Scotland): Who sets the CPV codes? CA or EO?

Rudolf Maier: The CPV code list should be available for the users to online easily chose the respective CPV.

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: CA sets CPV code

Steve Patterson (Scotland): Thanks!

Rudolf Maier: The turnover is in my understandung always a minimum requirement (pass or fail criteria.)

Steve Patterson (Scotland): The gidance would have to say that the CPV in the ESPD must match those in the contract notice.

Laura Martin: There is usually only one minimum requirement, not one per year.

Rudolf Maier: Usually the ask for an minimum tutn over which has to be reached over the last three years

Steve Patterson (Scotland): isn'yt it an average?

Rudolf Maier: I never heard that they would ask for more than one turnover.

Steve Patterson (Scotland): my guess is to assess stabiloity over a number of years?

Rudolf Maier: Normally the EO states the figure of his turn over, e.g. 2013: 600.000,--; 2014 712,000 and so on.

Rudolf Maier: Instead of just saying "Yes I had this turnoverover the last three years.

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: If yearly turnover: CA provides No of years and 1 minimum requirement

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: EO provides number of turnover for 3 years and it must meet at least one time

Rudolf Maier: Zhe minimum turn over has to be met every year. (for the klast three years).

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: If average turnover: CA provides 1 minimum requirement and number of years (lets say 3). The EO provides for the average over the period

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: yes every year

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: we can train the CAs to use only one requirement for all years or alternatively to use average annual turnover.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: you do not have to build in check inside the ESPD service for checking if the minimum is fulfilled.

Rudolf Maier: Normallythe CA asks for three years. Asking for 5 years may exclude a bigger number of EO from parcipating in the procedure.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: actually do not do this because EO can state their turnover in different currency

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: I mean minimum check

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: see my previous comment

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: good!

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: I just anticipated that this idea might be coming next....

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: I do not like to idea of CPVs .... but that's my personal problem.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: Companies in general do not know the CPVs

Rudolf Maier: Lot and CPV code will never match 100 %.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: and it's difficult to find a CPV code for digging a ditch

Laura Martin: Based on lots makes sense.

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: Can we agree that the specific... is based on lots?

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: if we have to have CPVs then lots makes sense

Laura Martin: yes!

Rudolf Maier: The turnover should be matched to the lot. The lot ccan contain several CPV.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: one think to remember: there will always be companies and procurement procedures that have problems with this. we'd better keep in mind that 80% or even 60% of the cases

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: are ok

Steve Patterson (Scotland): the lots are connected to CPV anyway, so we can do both.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: Siemens would possible not have a turnover (audited and in their books) for their trains only....

Rudolf Maier: The train exmple is exactly showing why specific turnovers are necessary.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: but very seldom on product basis.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: and CPVs are product bases

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: or service

Rudolf Maier: Should be on lots and their respective CPV codes.

Rudolf Maier: The CPV codes were introduced to prive a "translation" of the activity to EO of other countries without the need of a "verbal" translation.

Rudolf Maier: On the product.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: CA always!

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: no automatic conversion please

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: yes!

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: one note on CPVs: we use only those because they are must in Contract notice. we do not use them for anything else and if I asked our EOs what

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: a CPV code is they'd have no idea

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: because they do not make sense... in general :-)

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: Yep...

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: that is currently our quick fix

[ec-mcs]

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: we do not have selection list yet

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: minimum or maximum

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: could be in some cases also both

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: EO would provide one number

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: this is our incapable coders work

Rudolf Maier: The ratio should be simple and easily understood for all EO, e.g. the percentage of own capital in comparison with the turnover.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: that depends on the ratio

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: see my video... from Monday

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: net gearing has 100 % as recommended maximum.

Rudolf Maier: Depending on the ration a minimum or a maximum should be asked for, never both.

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: quick ratio has a minimum of 1

Rudolf Maier: It can also be an other figure, e.g. for the own capital 30% of the turnover etc.

Rudolf Maier: OK

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: then it's minimum...

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: Mock Ups are better at

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: 5 minutes brake... we continue at 14:04

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: Mock ups are better at least for me... I do not speak 'code'

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: I will hang around here until my flight to BRU departs. MC: see you tomorrow in SEGPP meeting

Marc-Christopher SCHMIDT: see you tomorrow :-)

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: the next step should be allowing CA to set the years from which the average annual turnover xoil sen from

Timo Rantanen / Hansel / Finland: could be from...

Steve Patterson (Scotland): MC, is it still the plan to pull the wording of national exclusion grounds through from eCertis. I think you said a while ago this would happen around Chritmas...

[paulakeen]

See below a new proposal for the element ccv:Requirement that provides a solution for the specification of minimum and maximum values. This can be used, for example in the case of Turnovers and Ratios to specify the expected minimum and/or maximum values.

Beware that the attribute "ResponseDataType" has been revamped into a sub-element of the ccv:Requirement element named "ExpectedDataType", thus aligning the ESPD-EDM model with the UBL-2.2 approach.

[paulakeen]

The XSD Schema corresponding to the above UML diagram looks like the one below. Please notice that the Requirement attribute ResponseDataType has been converted into a element name ExpectedDataType (inside the Requirement complex element).

[paulakeen]

The figure below illustrates a posible user interface from the CA point of view with the modifications discussed above:

[paulakeen]

The figure below illustrates a posible user interface from the EO point of view with the modifications discussed above:

[rantati7]

I have given a thought over including CPV codes to specific turnovers, in EO view.

Please, please, do not do this!

CPVs are one way to classify products - it is not the way to classify business areas where the supplier operates in. Including this would just lead to massive amount of problems on grass-root level.

Far better solution:

• let CA define the business area in his view
• EO sees this definition in his view and can give the specific turnover following CAs requirements.

[JoseLuisCueva]

While I can understand the concerns explained by Timo, I do not think that CPVs are only for products. CPVs are meant to cover the whole field of public procurement goods and services (See for instance: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement/rules-implementation/common-vocabulary). From the viewpoint of the ESPD-EDM perhaps an eclectic solution might fit the bill: accomodate both options in the model, so the CA can define the scope for the turnover either in terms of CPVs OR in tems of an ad-hoc statement (free text in its own language and terms). The advantages of the first option are clear in terms of interoperability in a multilingual context, but any CA uncomfortable with CPVs (? ) can still define the scope in its own words. Best regards, Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Timo Rantanen <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 3/1/17 15:40 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) I have given a thought over including CPV codes to specific turnovers, in EO view. Please, please, do not do this! CPVs are one way to classify products - it is not the way to classify business areas where the supplier operates in. Including this would just lead to massive amount of problems on grass-root level. Far better solution: * let CA define the business area in his view * CA sees this definition in his view and can give the specific turnover following CAs requirements. � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvLccxYhgxE-zQAgyP0Bq0el9_pYdks5rOl3EgaJpZM4KZxum>. ********************* Aviso Legal ********************* Este mensaje y cualquier fichero adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente a sus destinatarios y contiene informaci�n confidencial. Si usted considera que ha recibido este correo electr�nico por error (por el asunto, por el remitente o por cualquier otra causa), le informamos que cualquier revisi�n, alteraci�n, impresi�n, copia o transmisi�n de este mensaje o de cualquier fichero adjunto est� prohibida y puede constituir un acto ilegal. Por favor, notif�quele el error al remitente respondiendo a este e-mail y elimine el mensaje y su contenido inmediatamente. El Ministerio de Hacienda y Funci�n P�blica se reserva las acciones legales que le correspondan contra todo tercero que acceda de forma ileg�tima al contenido de cualquier mensaje externo procedente del mismo. ********************* Disclaimer ********************* This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential information. If it appears (from the subject matter or address information or otherwise) that you received this email in Error, please note that any review, dissemination, disclosure, alteration, printing, copying or transmission of this e-mail or any file transmitted with it is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify us by return email and delete this email and its contents immediately. Spanish Ministry of Finance and Civil Service, according with the illegal access to the content of any external message from the Ministry.

[ec-mcs]

We should indeed cater for both. Using CPVs is much more favorable in terms of interoperability.

[ec-mcs]

Unfortunately the chat history was deleted...
We agreed that we would allow for the specific turnover the possibility for the CA to decide to use CPV XOR textfield. We will make a mockup

[paulakeen]

Yes, this was decided and we'll provide a mock-up by end of today, max tomorrow morning. However, to the best of my recollection the decision made was "OR" not "XOR".

But we can re-discuss it, of course.

[JoseLuisCueva]

I think OR is better than XOR in this case. Although with OR there is some risk of inconsistency between code and text, both CPV and text are provided by the CA, who knows well what is the contract object, so the risk is small and controlled by the CA. On the other hand, CPV explanation can be too short in some cases, and I think it might be useful for both sides to keep open in the ESPD the possibility of writing both in the ESPD Request. Best regards. Jos� Luis Cueva

…

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: paulakeen <notifications@github.com> Fecha: 9/1/17 16:20 (GMT+01:00) Para: ESPD/ESPD-EDM <ESPD-EDM@noreply.github.com> Cc: "Cueva Calabia, Jos� Luis" <joseluis.cueva@minhafp.es>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com> Asunto: Re: [ESPD/ESPD-EDM] Part IV: Selection criteria, B: Economic and financial standing, TURNOVERS (#44) Yes, this was decided and we'll provide a mock-up by end of today, max tomorrow morning. However, to the best of my recollection the decision made was "OR" not "XOR". But we can re-discuss it, of course. � You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#44 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATTmvBX0-e2-DcDkkX3ihsnbtiUEXazNks5rQlAtgaJpZM4KZxum>. ********************* Aviso Legal ********************* Este mensaje y cualquier fichero adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente a sus destinatarios y contiene informaci�n confidencial. Si usted considera que ha recibido este correo electr�nico por error (por el asunto, por el remitente o por cualquier otra causa), le informamos que cualquier revisi�n, alteraci�n, impresi�n, copia o transmisi�n de este mensaje o de cualquier fichero adjunto est� prohibida y puede constituir un acto ilegal. Por favor, notif�quele el error al remitente respondiendo a este e-mail y elimine el mensaje y su contenido inmediatamente. El Ministerio de Hacienda y Funci�n P�blica se reserva las acciones legales que le correspondan contra todo tercero que acceda de forma ileg�tima al contenido de cualquier mensaje externo procedente del mismo. ********************* Disclaimer ********************* This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential information. If it appears (from the subject matter or address information or otherwise) that you received this email in Error, please note that any review, dissemination, disclosure, alteration, printing, copying or transmission of this e-mail or any file transmitted with it is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify us by return email and delete this email and its contents immediately. Spanish Ministry of Finance and Civil Service, according with the illegal access to the content of any external message from the Ministry.

[arocamop]

New version of specific avarage turnover according to the latest discusions:

CA viewpoint:

EO viewpoint:

[arocamop]

New version of specific yearly turnover according to the latest discusions:

CA viewpoint:

EO viewpoint: