Call For Tender/Distinction between Framework Agreement and Specific Contract

[eprocurementontology]

Patrizia Cannuli proposed the following issue on behalf of Consip:
"The call for tender should be detailed in order to distinguish between first and second phase of negotiation (i.e. a contract based on a framework agreements provided for in Article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU and specific contract based on a dynamic purchasing system as provided for in Article 34 of that Directive). The framework agreements are awarded by Central Purchasing Body while specific contracts are awarded by other Contracting Authorities."

How should we handle this distinction? What relationships should be created or removed?

[gretamolnar]

I agree with the comment about call for tender should be detailed for example in order to distinguish between first and second phase of tender, but I would highlight framework agreements can be awarded by Contracting Authorities too, and a CPB is a Contracting Authority too. Thats why a simple, clear determination would be very useful.

[JachymHercher]

I think this is being extensively discussed within OCDS, with the latest issue at open-contracting/standard#440.

(A distinction should definitely be made between the OCDS concepts of procuringEntity and a buyer, where I would say that a procuringEntity is linked more to a procedure, while a buyer is linked more to an awarded contract. However, this distinction is probably not enough to model all the possibilities.)

[makxdekkers]

In the latest version of the conceptual model (to be provided ahead of the WG meeting of 24 May 2017) there is a comment in the definition of the Call For Tender: "Note that this class could be further detailed. Depending on further use cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between Framework Agreements and Specific Contracts." This is in issue for further discussion.

[muricna]

This needs to be further discussed Dynamic Purchasing Systems (DPS) have to be taken into consideration. I do not think these are classes of the call for tender they are are actually part of the procurement procedure though I am not sure how to model this

[JachymHercher]

It definitely must be possible to distinguish between FA and Specific Contracts (e.g. already for the data journalist use case). However, I'm not sure exactly how to model this in the ontology. For example, perhaps this distinction is clear already from the FA having only a "maximum value", while a Specific Contract having a "value"?

Another point is that there are several types of framework agreements with important differences (see e.g. open-contracting/standard#440) and a DPS can be viewed as a type of FA.

Also, besides FA and DPS, I think we should also include qualification systems in the same category, as a QS seems very similar to a DPS.

[muricna]

We probably need to add QS as this is missing in the current conceptual model

[eprocurementontology]

Qualification system needs to be added to the model. The purchase contract could perhaps be renamed specific contract.

[paulakeen]

The last comment contains two new issues, not one. Please separate different subjects in different issues. I'll do it now for you.

See Issue #169 and #170