Relation between procedure identifiers and "canonical" award notice

[jahirulislam-forgent]

Here "canonical" means separate work events that happen and not merely the modification of an existing work event.

Take these two award notices. They are can-modif notices. They have different procedure identifiers. And the internal references also look different. But other than that they also look very similar. And if I check the "related" notices section, they have the exact same notices listed.

https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/639767-2025
https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/79479-2026

https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/639767-2025/related
https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/79479-2026/related

The awarded lot values are also different for both notices (LOT 0000)

https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/639767-2025 - 4 500,00 EUR
https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/79479-2026/ - 8 049,45 EUR

Since they are modification notices, they are updating values of an existing contract (#1388). But looks like the original "Result" notice (009730-2009) isn't available in TED website

So how do I interpret these values? How are these 2 notices related? Can I rely on the procedure identifier and say, since they have different procedure identifier, they are modifying the values of different awarded contracts? Is that interpretation of the procedure identifier correct?

Just to give another example, lets say I have 3 can-modif notices

Notice A - Procedure ID P - LOT 001 value 1000
Notice B - Procedure ID P - LOT 001 value 2000
Notice C - Procedure ID Q - LOT 001 value 5000

Can I say, there are 2 work events where the supplier is supposed to deliver some work. The value of the first one is 2000 and the value of the second one is 5000?

My main concern is making sure I'm interpreting the procedure identifier correctly

[YvesJo]

Hi,
Indeed, when the 2 notices belong to a same procedure, they should have a same Procedure ID. Be aware that some information are checked so that some inconsistencies are waived and notices may be linked together as part of a same family (related notices). I also do not exclude a later change (correction of the notice by the author).
LOT-0000 was initially only foreseen for the case where a procedure is not subdivided into lots (i.e. one purely technical lot to keep a same structure as with other cases).
When it is about a same contract (and not about various contracts in a Framework Agreement), then there is/was only one competition and I would expect an aggregated amount associated to the tender (and not the delta corresponding to the last additional expressed needs) and the amount of the variation could be detailed in the description of the modification.
The original notice which was most likely in TED XML (and not in eForms) is certainly already archived.
KR