-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
lots: No place to state the awarded value of the lot #162
Comments
The new UK regulations mean they will need to disclose this at both the award and contract stages. They also plan on publishing details of bids so in the situation where the awarded value of the lot is just the value of the successful bid this information is contained in Adding a new field to There could be a new object with both the lot value AND a reference to the lot id, e.g. {
"awards": [
{
"id": "1",
"awardedLotValues": [
{
"lotID": "lot-1",
"value": {
"amount": 10,
"currency": "USD"
}
}
],
"relatedLots": [
"lot-1"
]
}
]
} I considered a more general name for Or as mentioned in open-contracting/standard#790 (comment) we could just add the entire lot object to {
"awards": [
{
"id": "1",
"lots": [
{
"id": "lot-1"
}
]
}
]
} TLDR: should we add fyi @Ben-Hickling |
Is this known to be true in the UK?
This is a single lookup, and it's not terribly difficult (compared to eForms, where a whole series of lookups is needed). |
Unclear, I'll ask
Yes I was probably overstating the case there and thinking of the laziest possible analyst :) Re a previous discussion about 1 award per lot I don't remember such a discussion other than the bids one you've linked to. The problem with having a single award per lot would come when linking the awards to contracts, and an award that was for multiple lots leading to just a single contract which would then be unmodellable in OCDS due to the 1:1 linkages between awards and contracts. |
Ah, yes, that brings up open-contracting/standard#790 (comment) The most common unit of analysis for contracting data is "per lot". Aggregating multiple lot-awards into a single award makes that difficult. I think the appropriate model is to have one award per lot (this also matches the reality described in the linked issues), and then to allow a contract to relate to multiple awards – because we want to ease analysis, and because since we want the number of contracts in OCDS to match the number of contracts in the real world. (We are less fussed about counting the number of "awards", since awards aren't as concrete – there isn't a legal instrument like a contract document, etc.) My recommendation for the UK would be to implement a |
An award can be made for multiple lots (hence Award.relatedLots).
However, it is not possible to disclose the awarded value of individual lots.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: