Confusion about BT-769

[AHenselCsx]

I am confused about BT-769.

The current structure surrounding BT-769 "Multiple Tenders; Tenderers may submit more than one tender. .." differs between eForms-SDK (including TED-eNotices2), and regulation 2019/1780 (legal basis for eForms), esp. the relation to

• BT-94 "Recurrence; Procurement whose purpose is likely to also be included in another procedure in the foreseeable future ..." and
• BT-63 "Variants; Whether tenderers are required, allowed, or not allowed to submit tenders which fulfil the buyer’s needs differently than as proposed in the procurement documents. ...".

First, at regulation 2019/1780, BT-769 is next to BT-63 and part of BG-102 "Submission Terms". BT-94 part of BG-2 "Information about the purpose of the procurement procedure". There is a very weak or no relation between BT-769 and BT-94, and a stronger between BT-63 and BT-769.

At eNotice2, BT-769 and BT-94 (and BT-95 "Recurrence Description" ) are grouped at GR-Recurrence "Information about recurrence". BT-63 is part of BG-102 "Submission Terms". This in turn is next to group GR-Lot-Variants including BT-63. Here there is a very strong relation between BT-769 and BT-94, and not so strong between BT-63 and BT-769.

Second when selecting "BT-94=NO" i.a. no recurrence procurement, BT-95 is forbidden and suppressed in the eNotice2 view. This comes naturally, without a recurrent procedure there is no need to describe this recurrence.
But BT-769 is not suppressed, but allowed for "BT-94=NO".

So what is right:

• BT-769 relates to recurrent procedures; why is it allowed for non-recurrent procedures?
• BT-769 does not relate to recurrent procedures; why is grouped with recurrence?

[YvesJo]

Hi,
The Notice Type Definitions are highly dependent on the UBL standard schema and all the fields in question are inside "cac:TenderingTerms", as a consequence they may be found close one to the other.
The fact that multiple tenders may be submitted for a given Lot is not restricted to the possible use of variants; it also has few to do with recurrent procedures and shouldn't therefore be in the same Group with a label referring to Recurrence only.
This will most likely get fixed with SDK 1.14.
KR

[AHenselCsx]

I agree with the move of BT-769 out of the group "recurrence".

I still see some judicial connection between BT-769 and variants, but I do agree that this is no technical issue, and different one.