Buyer profile data quality

Buyer profile data quality is one of the subindicators used for zIndex contracting authorities evaluation. It is the only one with a different reference period range - from January 1st 2013 to August 25th 2014, due to the fact that machine-readability of buyers profiles has not been implemented until 2013.

This indicator evaluates whether and how contracting authorities publish contract information on their electronic buyer profiles, using a machine-readable interface that every profile is legally obliged to have. The following three aspects are evaluated:

  • Functionality - does the profile have a machine-readable access as required by law?
  • Completeness - does the profile contain information on all the contracts published in the Journal?
  • Quality - does the profile contain any apparent errors or information inconsistent with the Journal?

Buyer profile is an obligatory instrument for publishing more detailed (when compared to the Journal) information about public contracts. That includes above all the tender specifications, contract agreements, exact prices actually paid, list of subcontractors etc. According to the best practice guides the use of electronic profiles facilitates contract publicity, accessibility and public control, as well as reduces administration burden and corruption risks.

All electronic buyer profiles of each contracting authority were surveyed using a web bot before August 25th 2014; results of this surveillance including the entry data were recorded. In case of inaccessibility several attempts to retrieve the data were made. Application for current, up-to-date profile data is in development.

Due to machine-readability not being obligatory before January 1st 2013, only the contracts published since then are evaluated. Information available must be consistent with the information advertised in the Journal, in terms of number of tenders, correct identification of both the contracting authority and the winning bidder or the state of the tendering procedure (contract awarded/cancelled etc.). The winning price must in the same order of magnitude. be approximately similar. Data quality is also examined - using elementary requirements such as „for every contract awarded there must be the respective winning bidder declared“.

If a contracting authority has (or at any time had) several buyer profiles in the reference period, such situation is evaluated in the most conservative manner. It is not required that all unconcluded contracts were transferred to the newer profile (as required by the Ministry of Regional Development's methodology - see below). It is sufficient if at least one of the valid profiles was machine-readable. When evaluating the functionality and quality aspects, only profiles valid at the date of the surveillance were considered. On the other hand, in terms of the completeness aspect, any available data from all profiles past and present was taken into account. Indicator value is bounded below by 0 (negative value can not be assigned even in case of a large number of errors). Machine unreadable profiles contain no tenders an are thus rated with 0.

$$ z_9 = \frac{\mathrm{number\ of\ linked\ profile\ and\ Journal\ contracts}}{\mathrm{number\ of\ Journal\ profile\ contracts}} \times \Bigg( 1- \frac{\mathrm{number\ of\ errors}}{4 \times \mathrm{number\ of\ linked\ contracts}} \Bigg) $$

Evaluation examples:

  • a profile does not have a machine-readable interface: 0
  • a profile is machine-readable and contains 20% of contracts published in the Journal, without any errors: 0.2
  • a profile is machine-readable and contains 100% of contracts published in the Journal, each with 2 errors: 0.5

Precise contract publication in compliance with the Decree 168/2016 Coll., On publication of contract notifications pursuant to the Public Procurement Act and on the buyer profile provisions. If even then the profile does not meet the declared requirements, there is typically some issue caused by the profile's provider, who should be notified or possibly even switched. In case of switching it is however still necessary (in compliance with the Ministry of Regional Development's methodology (in Czech)) to transfer all contracts to the new buyer profile. Only in limited number of cases it is possible to leave already concluded contracts on the previous profile, provided it still remains accessible.

A frequent error in terms of completeness aspect is not the actual non-disclosure of a contract on the profile, but rather the incorrect declaration of its Journal registration number, which prevents its identification as the same contract. Such misconduct is considered less serious than the actual non-disclosure.

Evaluation may discriminate contracting authorities that in good faith use profiles, that do not provide a reliable machine-readable interface or such interface do not provide the proper data. Reliability is also assessed in the view of the actual data availability - a number of profiles operate only formally, with a lot of downtime during a single day. If data could not be retrieved on a several attempts, the profile is penalized accordingly.

Said good faith is also understandable in case of instruments whose compliance with the provisions of Public Procurement Act is even officially certified (Ministry of Regional Development's list of certified electronic tools (in Czech)). Nonetheless even these tools struggle with issues that makes it difficult or even prevents the proper publication of information in compliance with the law.

Due to the different implementations of date based search across different profile providers, pertinence of a contract to the reference period may be unclear at times. It is therefore possible that some contracts are evaluated twice. This may negatively impact the final evaluation to a certain degree, if those very contracts are flawed above average.

  • en/kvalita_dat_na_profilu.txt
  • Poslední úprava: 2018/07/27 14:05
  • autor: Jiří Skuhrovec