Small cities • 2016

Město Nepomuk

IČO 00256986

Uncompetitive procedures are overused. The risks of corruption and inefficiency are relatively low for chosen suppliers.

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

55%
average 59%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
Nepomuk - rekonstrukce místních komunikací - CZ.1.14/1.5.00/13.02501 - dodatečné stavební práce (dodatek 5)
Práce na stavbě silnic
1
Ø6 in industry
Zateplení Základní školy Nepomuk
Stavební úpravy školních budov
7
Ø5 in industry
Zateplení Základní školy Nepomuk, CZ.1.02/3.2.00/12.13619, akceptační číslo 12115953
Stavební úpravy školních budov
9
Ø5 in industry
Zateplení Základní školy Nepomuk, CZ.1.02/3.2.00/12.13619, akceptační číslo 12115953
Stavební úpravy školních budov
5
Ø5 in industry
Nepomuk, pěší bezbariérové trasy Nádražní ulice I. etapa - ISPROFOND 5327510029
Stavební úpravy pro komunikace
7
Ø5 in industry

Winner concentration

Isn't majority of contracts awarded to small circle of firms?   detailed info 

65%
average 51%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume Kč
Eurovia Cs, a.s.
1 20,141,877
Kh Stazap s.r.o.
1 13,799,630
morez stavební s.r.o.
1 10,354,682
Dřevotvar - Řemesla a Stavby, s.r.o.
1 10,305,999
Colas Cz, a.s.
2 7,585,210
Other suppliers 3 5,566,628

Pro-competitive tools

Does the buyer foster the competition by using the available tools?   detailed info 

50%
average 64%
Tool Contracts count
Extended deadlines 0% (0 from 0)
Nonprice competition 0% (0 from 4)
Division into lots 0% (0 from 4)
E-auction 0% (0 from 4)
Innovative procedure 0% ( from 4)

Competitive contracting

How often does buyer use non-competitive procedures?   detailed info 

18%
average 84%

Consistent conduct

Does buyer discourage bidders by frequent competition cancellations or modifications?   detailed info 

80%
average 69%
Type of flaw Result
Issued tenders without published result 0%
Cancelled contracts 20%
Average requirements modifications count 0

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

88%
average 80%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 11% (1 from 9)
Final or estimated price not published 44% (4 from 9)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 9)
Missing supplier ID 0% (0 from 9)
Missing buyer ID 0% (0 from 9)
Wrong buyer name 0% (0 from 9)
Missing call for tenders 0% (0 from 9)
Missing winning price 0% ( from 9)
Contract modification by more than 50 % 0% ( from 9)

Supplier rating

Do the risky firms win frequently?   detailed info 

100%
average 85%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Supplier founded less than 180 days before contract award 0% (0 from 9)
Supplier with over 75 % of turnover from public procurement 0% (0 from 9)
Subcontractor share above 50 % 0% (0 from 9)
Supplier demise shortly after contract 0% (0 from 9)
Supplier bankruptcy 0% (0 from 9)
Supplier donating to political party 0% (0 from 9)
Supplier did not publish financial results on time 0% (0 from 9)