E1: lots instead of parts?

[mdewinne]

While testing SDK 1.13, we noticed that notice subtype E1 uses lots instead of parts. Is this intentional? Often when launching a market consultation, the procurement object is not fully defined yet (hence the prospection). And therefore, the use of "parts" (according to the definition a "component, that, at launch of the call for competition, may become a Lot or a self-standing Procedure") seems more appropriate, no?

[YvesJo]

I understand your concern, however the use of lots is intentional.
There are also Groups related BTs allowed for E1.

[mdewinne]

Thank you for your answer, although we are very surprised to learn this. During one of the Q&A sessions of the TED together meeting, the difference between parts and lots was discussed. It was mentioned that unlike lots, parts are not yet linked to a procedure. Parts can later on be split into different lots, or they can be combined into a single lot or even become a distinct procedure.

This is also affirmed by the documentation: consultation notices "are not linked to any procedure". And according to the timeline, consultation notices are usually expected even before planning notices.

A lot is also something which can be awarded, whereas a consultation notice is not really intended to award anything to anyone.

So bottom line: we really don't see how these notices could already have lots. Aren't the general principles and semantic model being sacrificed here, in favour of a lower-level technical solution?

And won't this backfire in the long run? What if a buyer first wants to do a market consultation, then publish a planning notice and finally launch the competition? They'll switch from lots to parts and then back to lots. Will they still be allowed to change the number of lots when launching the competition? Presumably yes, since the procedure identifier only becomes mandatory when launching the competition. Still, while this may not be a problem on your side, where only that identifier is used to link notices, it may be very different for your esenders, who have platforms to manage procurement projects from start to finish.

Our apologies for being so insistent on this matter, but it's not without impact for us. Is this choice already set in stone or might you still reconsider this decision?

[YvesJo]

I understand your insistence, there are elements in favor and against the idea of using Parts. Lots is most likely not better. We need to have a closer look and an internal consultation.
We'll keep you posted.