Article VII:4 and VII:5 #26
Conversation
|
The mapping goes faster than expected. I wll keep on committing on this PR until EoD. |
|
Are you sure the guidance for VII:2(k) is good? It doesn't seem to match the text. |
|
I'll wait for your feedback and the validation of the patterns I used before mapping further. |
The guidance for VII:2(k) on this page looks fine here: https://standard.open-contracting.org/profiles/gpa/master/en/gpa/ You fixed it in #25. |
…rnment-procurement-agreement into VII-4-5
|
Done down to X:11 included. |
|
I'm tempted to add
whenever a What do you think? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm tempted to add
- Enter the Web address where the document can be viewed or download in its
urlwhenever a
Documentis added, even if the document URL is not mentioned in the GPA article. That goes beyond the instructions of the GPA, butDocumentwithout a URL is a bit useless.What do you think?
We can have specific guidance as you suggest, or add a bullet suggesting to fill in any other known information for the document: https://standard.open-contracting.org/1.1/en/schema/reference/#document
| * Add *a list and brief description of any conditions for participation of suppliers* to `tender/eligibilityCriteria` | ||
| * If *requirements are included in tender documentation that is made available to all interested suppliers*: | ||
| * For each document, add a `Document` object to the `tender/documents` array | ||
| * Set its `documentType` to 'eligibilityCriteria' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this clause refers to selection criteria, similar to those in TED forms: open-contracting/standard#901 As I remember, TED forms had a few different ways of expressing such criteria.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mentioned on the call that certain keywords lead you to think this clause is related to selection criteria, but
- selection criteria are clearly mentioned in the next clause VII:2(k)
- eligibility criteria seem to be mentioned nowhere else (although the GPA may not mention them at all)
Do I repeat the guidance given in the next clause?
I just find that the GPA having two neighbour clauses about selection criteria is unlikely.
|
@ColinMaudry Let's resolve my comments and then merge this PR. It's become too long to review easily if we add any new changes :) |
Done in e06dd10 |
|
Did you review XIII:2 ? |
I skimmed it. I think after we merge, I'll re-read the full, rendered page just to double check. |
| * Add *a list and brief description of any conditions for participation of suppliers* to `tender/eligibilityCriteria` | ||
| * If *requirements are included in tender documentation that is made available to all interested suppliers*: | ||
| * For each document, add a `Document` object to the `tender/documents` array | ||
| * Set its `documentType` to 'eligibilityCriteria' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mentioned on the call that certain keywords lead you to think this clause is related to selection criteria, but
- selection criteria are clearly mentioned in the next clause VII:2(k)
- eligibility criteria seem to be mentioned nowhere else (although the GPA may not mention them at all)
Do I repeat the guidance given in the next clause?
I just find that the GPA having two neighbour clauses about selection criteria is unlikely.
|
I have merged so that I can proceed with the next PRs. |
(includes commits from VII:3)
I'm not happy with the mapping of the date publication of the notice of intended procurement, in VII:4. I think a
Milestonewould have been more suitable, but I found no suitable milestone type code.In the EU profile we used
tender.communication.futureNoticeDate. This property was created for the context of the TED forms, so the semantics might a bit loose for the GPA context. What do you think?