partyRole: Add code for Contract administration entity

[mireille-raad]

The code list for party roles doesn't include any "Contract administration entity"

http://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/schema/codelists/#party-role

A contract administration entity might be present in more large contracts and in PPPs. Would you consider adding it to the open code list as one of the defaults?

[dpinedam]

I Agree, there should be such role in Party block, and that for this case the Contract administration entity should be referenced under Contract/Signatories

[agm3dc]

I've recently run into the issue of not having a clear place to put contact info for a contract administrator, who may be different than the person referenced in the tender level procuring entity space.

[dpinedam]

Well, Contract Administration happens once a contract has been awarded and signed, so it could be a different partie.
So if it is defined at a early stage (tender or even planning) using Party building block, it already has contact info as part of its attributes.
See: http://standard.open-contracting.org/1.1-dev/en/schema/reference/#parties

[agm3dc]

Thanks @dpinedam, I hadn't seen the additionalContactPoints array. That's what i needed.

[duncandewhurst]

@DC-coder did I understand correctly that you are looking for a code to represent the case where a 3rd party is responsible for managing the contract, after signature, on behalf of the public party?

If so, I propose adding a contractAdministrator code with the following description:

A third party responsible for the management of the contract on behalf of the contracting agency, typically a private company providing this service for a fee, generally based on performance or total cost.

(Based on the definition of Management Contracting in the PPP Knowledgelab Glossary)

[jpmckinney]

@duncandewhurst Would you prefer copying the 'administrativeEntity' code from OC4IDS to satisfy this issue?

The entity responsible for contract administration.

[duncandewhurst]

I think the first clause of the PPP Knowledgelab definition provides a useful clarification on what contract administration actually means, though the latter clause is probably unnecessary and may be PPP specific.

How about combining the two:

The entity responsible for contract administration: the management of the contract on behalf of the contracting authority.

I had forgotten this issue when drafting codes for OC4IDS, so once the description is decided here we can update the description there too.

[dpinedam]

Sounds a great idea for me.

…

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:18 PM Duncan Dewhurst ***@***.***> wrote: I think the first clause of the PPP Knowledgelab definition provides a useful clarification on what contract administration actually means, though the latter clause is probably unnecessary and may be PPP specific. How about combining the two: The entity responsible for contract administration: the management of the contract on behalf of the contracting authority. I had forgotten this issue when drafting codes for OC4IDS, so once the description is decided here we can update the description there too. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#548 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFE_kvW9ONtlp5t7CIU7KQkNzvaARIgkks5vaRMLgaJpZM4O4iRH> .

-- Daniel Pineda

[jpmckinney]

For context, the PPP Knowledge Lab defines "Management Contracting" as:

A structure whereby a private company takes on the management of the project, selecting contractors, setting prices, and overseeing construction and other services for the benefit of the contracting agency for a fee, generally based on performance or total cost.

Within the discussion, we heard "Contract administration entity", "Contract Administration happens once a contract has been awarded and signed", and, in a question, "the case where a 3rd party is responsible for managing the contract, after signature, on behalf of the public party". It also seems that this code should only be applicable to third parties (i.e. if the procuring entity is managing the contract, then this code is not applicable).

There's an issue with using the broad terms "administrative" or "managing" as the procuringEntity also "administers" or "manages" the procurement procedure on behalf of the buyer. Instead, 'managementContractor' is a common term, deriving directly from "management contracting".

While doing research for the description, I realized that this term only relevantly comes up in the context of a project, where the coordination of the many contracts is complex enough to warrant a third-party with management expertise.

In the context of OCDS, this would mean each contracting process that is part of the same project would identify the same organization as being the management contractor. Instead of every contracting process holding a copy of this information (which can lead to quality errors if the management contractor is changed, and to missing data considering the management contractor might not be chosen until after some initial processes are completed), it seems better to instead mention the management contractor at the project level (ideally using OC4IDS).

I'm not sure this code is appropriate in the context of a contracting process, so I will leave it out of OCDS 1.1.4 pending further discussion.

[dpinedam]

The thing is that in real life we have both cases. One for biger PPP project where third party can administer or manage the contract (in our case Banks through a trust fund). Second, when another goverment insititution manage/administer the contract. This cases should be managed in an unanbiguous way in a single field in the stantard. What dou you think about it?

…

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:07 PM James McKinney ***@***.***> wrote: For context, the PPP Knowledge Lab defines "Management Contracting" as: A structure whereby a private company takes on the management of the project, selecting contractors, setting prices, and overseeing construction and other services for the benefit of the contracting agency for a fee, generally based on performance or total cost. Within the discussion, we heard "Contract administration entity", "Contract Administration happens once a contract has been awarded and signed", and, in a question, "the case where a 3rd party is responsible for managing the contract, after signature, on behalf of the public party". It also seems that this code should only be applicable to third parties (i.e. if the procuring entity is managing the contract, then this code is not applicable). There's an issue with using the broad terms "administrative" or "managing" as the procuringEntity also "administers" or "manages" the procurement procedure on behalf of the buyer. Instead, 'managementContractor' is a common term, deriving directly from "management contracting". While doing research for the description, I realized that this term only relevantly comes up in the context of a *project*, where the coordination of the many contracts is complex enough to warrant a third-party with management expertise. In the context of OCDS, this would mean each contracting process that is part of the same project would identify the same organization as being the management contractor. Instead of every contracting process holding a copy of this information (which can lead to quality errors if the management contractor is changed, and to missing data considering the management contractor might not be chosen until after some initial processes are completed), it seems better to instead mention the management contractor at the project level (ideally using OC4IDS). I'm not sure this code is appropriate in the context of a contracting process, so I will leave it out of OCDS 1.1.4 pending further discussion. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#548 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFE_kiaLABXrgfif0XoREwBJhGTO0ebSks5vaTqhgaJpZM4O4iRH> .

-- Daniel Pineda

[jpmckinney]

In the second case, is that government institution different from both the buyer and the procuring entity? Can you provide a concrete example?

[jpmckinney]

@duncandewhurst I'm assigning to you to make a proposal (no rush), given your experience on OCDS for PPPs and OC4IDS.

[jpmckinney]

@duncandewhurst Should this be made part of 1.1.5 or postponed (or closed if we can't find a clear description for the new code)?

[jpmckinney]

Postponing to 1.1.6 or 1.2.0.

[JachymHercher]

#548 (comment) raises the question of whether a "contract administrator" should be at the project level or contract level. #548 (comment) argues for both, I would think so as well, so I propose we do add a code.

What I am not sure about is the exact scope for 'contractAdministrator'. My understanding is that we are talking about a party that administers the implementation of the actual awarded contract, not the procedure or process. If that is the case, then an overlap with procuringEntity, which I understand to be the entity managing the procedure/process, is not a problem. (The definition of 'procuringEntity' may be worth clarifying in this case though: "procurement" is quite ambiguous, "contracting process" would be better.) Is my understanding correct?

If yes, then I would propose the definition "The entity responsible for managing the implementation of the contract on behalf of the buyer. (This may be different from the procuring entity that manages the contracting process.)"

Above, I'm using "manage" instead of "administer" to be consistent with the wording in 'procuringEntity'. However, in that case, the name of the field should not be 'contractAdministrator'. I would propose 'contractImplementer' ('contractManager' is another option, but it is unnecessarily broad).

[jpmckinney]

The entity responsible for managing the implementation of the contract on behalf of the buyer. (This may be different from the procuring entity that manages the contracting process.)

Sounds good to me! In terms of the code, 'contractImplementer' sounds a bit like a supplier on first reading. From a quick web search, 'implementationManager' or 'contractImplementationManager' seem to be terms used in at least the private sector to describe a similar role.

[JachymHercher]

I think keeping the word "contract" is important for emphasizing the distinction with the party that manages the "process", so 'contractManager' or 'contratImplementationManager' sounds good to me. Assuming there is nothing else to manage about a contract except its implementation, then the former may be sufficient and more easily readable.

[jpmckinney]

A web search for "contract manager" seems to turn up roles relating to preparing and reviewing contracts, preparing proposals and negotiating contracts, etc. so 'contractImplementationManager' is wordy but unambiguous.