Query in relation to BT-765/BT-766 and their impact on BT-161, BT-118, BT-1118 in SDK version 1.9
I have a query for which I seek some advice or guidance.
Currently our implementation of eForms is using the major release of SDK1.9 and we have come arcoss what we think is an issue in relation to BT-765 for FWA comps and BT-766 for DPS comps.
The Annex notes that BT-765 is mandatory for answer in F29 (D24 CAN) while BT-766 is also mandatory for answer in F30 (D25 CAN). The Annex also notes that BT-161, BT-118 and BT-1118 are conditionally mandatory in the Annex for F29 and F30.
The Annex does not provide any information on the relationship between the M and CM fields in the Annex and our implementation is presenting with BT-1118 as the default scenario in the "Result [GR-NoticeResult-Section]" across F29 and F30 (see image one in the attached).
Our thinking is that the selected answer for BT-765 or BT-766 should dictate whether BT-161, BT-118 and BT-1118 appear in the "Result [GR-NoticeResult-Section]" can this be confirmed by the Commission or the OP?
We are thinking that if you select any of the options "Framework agreement, partly without opening and partly with reopening of competition", "Framework agreement, with reopening of competition" or "Framework agreement, without reopening of competition" then you should be prompted to answer BT-118 in the "Result [GR-NoticeResult-Section]" of the F29 notice. Similarly, if you select "No framework agreement" in BT-765 then you should be prompted to answer BT-161 in the "Result [GR-NoticeResult-Section]"
We are not certain of the parameters when selection BT-766 but we think that if you select any of the positive options that indicate you are using a DPS then the user should be prompted to use BT-161.
At the very least we feel that BT-161, BT-118 and BT-1118 should all be presented in the "Result [GR-NoticeResult-Section]" of the notice until such time as a decision is taken at BT-765 and BT-766, but only BT-1118 is presenting by default.
We are not the technical implementers and we are relying on our service provider to implement the SDKs on our national tendering platform and they are stating that the issues we are experiencing are a result of issues with the SDK1.9 major release.
We are wondering if there are any issues in the SDK1.9 major release that need to be corrected or is it operating as expected and any guidance that could be provided would be greatly appreciated.