Add field for award type

[odscjen]

The OCDS pilot data published recently by Canada contains an additional field awards/agreementType. The values in this field are the different types of standing offer issued by PWGSC.

The question is how to correctly map this additional field to the schema. Should we consider these standing orders as a type of framework agreement and therefore already covered by the techniques extension? Or are they something different in which case do we need to add a new type to the techniques extension? In either case it is clear that there is a use case here for distinguishing between different types of standing order which from my understanding the techniques extension doesn't currently support.

I note there was discussion around this in issue 909 but it wasn't focused on this particular issue and so doesn't come to an agreement on how to treat standing orders.

[jpmckinney]

Re: standing offers, see #909 (comment)

Since they are putting this field on awards, I see this more as about distinguishing the types of award.

In the EU, for example, there are design contests in which the award is a "prize". However, it's not possible to mix procurement procedures and design contests, and so the type of award is always known based on the presence of tender.designContest.

Similarly, awards can be concessions, a state asset (after a state asset sale), or a partnership (in a PPP). For concessions, in the EU at least, the distinction can be made based on the legal basis (Directive 2014/23/EU). If other jurisdictions, I believe procurementMethodDetails is used to give the name of the procedure, which typically implies the award type. #1144

That said, we can consider an open codelist field on the award to indicate its type (procurement contract, prize, concession, asset, supplier listing, etc.) – and then jurisdictions like Canada can use their own codes for distinctions – either in this field or in a sibling field like subType.