Skip to content
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

Buyer definition does not cater for post award needs #279

Closed
cecileguasch opened this issue Feb 9, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

Buyer definition does not cater for post award needs #279

cecileguasch opened this issue Feb 9, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels
module: ePO core ePO core type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
Milestone

Comments

@cecileguasch
Copy link

In a post award context, the Buyer will purchase on basis of an already awarded contract. The definition should mention this alternative

@idolum
Copy link

idolum commented Feb 18, 2021

As additional information:

Definitions used by Peppol:

  • Buyer (Business Role): Is the legal person or organization acting on behalf of the customer and who buys or purchases the goods or services.

Definitions used by UBL:

  • Buyer: The Party Role for a Party that purchases the goods or services on behalf of the Originator.
  • Originator: The Party Role for a Party that had the original demand for the goods and/or services and therefore initiated the procurement transaction.

@eprocurementontology
Copy link
Collaborator

Regulation (EU) 2019/1780 defines a Buyer as follows: Contracting authority, contracting entity, a defence contractor, an international organisation, or an organisation awarding a contract subsidized by a contracting authority.
Hence EU vocabularies uses the same definition.
To cover the post-award needs and some other pre-award needs we could add comments in the additional information to provide for other needs.
The problem with the definition is it states "awarding a contract" when in fact a buyer purchases the object of the procurement.
Furthermore the use of the term subsidized does not seem to fit as our understanding is that subsidized means providing financial support and not the payment as procurement.
The definition would not appear to fit with the eInvoicing norm.
The issue should be brought to the attention of DG GROW.
It is not clear whether the work around could also be applied to the controlled vocabulary.

@JachymHercher
Copy link

JachymHercher commented Jul 28, 2021

The problem with the definition is it states "awarding a contract" when in fact a buyer purchases the object of the procurement.

This part of the buyer definition comes quite directly from Art. 13 of Directive 2014/24/EU.

Concerning the general point on "awarding a contract" vs. "purchasing the object of the procurement", the procurement Directives speak mainly about public contracts, so eForms approach things similarly.

@eprocurementontology
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for this clarification it would seem that rather than being a definition of what a buyer is the list:

  • contracting authority (Directive 2014/24/EU),
  • contracting entity (Directive 2014/25/EU)
  • a defence contractor (Directive 2009/81/EC),
  • an international organisation (Directive 2014/24/EU Article 9b),
  • or an organisation awarding a contract subsidized by a contracting authority (Directive 2014/24/EU Article 13).

provides the examples of buyers within the procurement directives (see limited examples above).

@JachymHercher
Copy link

JachymHercher commented Jul 29, 2021

Well, within the procurement directives (/eForms), it is an exhaustive list rather than examples. Defining a concept through such a list has the advantage of being able to rely on concepts that are defined elsewhere (often in huge detail, e.g. there is a ton of case-law on what a contracting authority is and isn't). The fact that some things are excluded from being a buyer is a feature in this sense, not a bug - eForms sees things the same way as the Directives.

Whether this fits for the ontology depends on the ontology's users / use cases I guess, but assuming that the ontology needs to be alinged with eForms, then I'd think there wouldn't be much scope for narrowing nor expanding the definition.

What are the organizations that you'd like to be covered by buyer, but they are not? For example, most organizations buying on the basis of an already awarded contract will still be contracting authorities, so they should be within the definition's scope.

@andreea-pasare andreea-pasare added type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release module: ePO core ePO core labels Oct 11, 2022
@andreea-pasare andreea-pasare added this to the 2022 Q4 milestone Oct 11, 2022
@andreea-pasare
Copy link
Collaborator

As of ePO version 3.0.1, the definition for epo:Buyer is:

A role of an agent that awards a contract and/or purchases items.

Additional information:
In public procurement the role of buyer is carried out by the following types of organisation contracting authority, contracting entity, a defence contractor, an international organisation, or an organisation awarding a contract subsidized by a contracting authority.
In pre-award, the buyer generally awards the contract, however future purchasers may be foreseen.
In post-award the buyer generally refers to the purchaser of items.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
module: ePO core ePO core type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants