Potential duplicate of data elements due to decomposing business terms to fields (BT-157-LotsGroup, BT-271-LotsGroup)

[jpmckinney]

In almost all cases, the SDK is correct in introducing fields where the level of granularity of the BTs is not sufficient to accurately reflect the structure of the information in the XML notices.

However, when BT-271 was decomposed into BT-271-LotsGroup, this leads to a duplication of BT-157-LotsGroup, because the regulation had already anticipated the need to specialize BT-271 in the case of a lot group (BT-157).

BT-271:

The maximum value of the framework agreement for the procurement procedure or lot, over its whole duration, including options and renewals. This value covers all contracts to be awarded within the framework agreement.

BT-157:

The maximum value which may be spent in a framework agreement within a group of lots. This information can be provided when the maximum value of a group of lots is lower than the sum of maximum values of individual lots in this group (e.g. when the same budget is shared for several lots). Maximum value means a value covering all contracts to be awarded within a framework agreement over its whole duration, including options and renewals.

As far as I understand, there is no semantic difference between BT-271-LotsGroup and BT-157-LotsGroup. Therefore, the SDK creates a repetition and therefore a possibility of inconsistency by adding BT-271-LotsGroup. This can be resolved by removing BT-271-LotsGroup.

To put this issue in other words: The level of granularity of the BTs was sufficient to accurately reflect the maximum value of a framework agreement for a group of lots.

[YvesJo]

Hi,
Thanks for reporting. The issue is known and is being addressed together with another one. A fix is most likely to be expected with SDK 1.10
KR

[jpmckinney]

Hi, I didn't see this in the release notes for 1.10. Is it planned for 1.11?

[YvesJo]

Hi,
This is definitely not in SDK 1.10, the resolution of a greater concern was expected with the next amendment and this won't however be the case. A decision needs to be made so that that could be added to SDK 1.11.

[jpmckinney]

As an update to this issue, noting that it is not in 1.11.

[YvesJo]

Decision has not yet been made regarding that topic. I also do not expect it to happen for SDK 1.12.