Small cities • 2018 • past ranking

Město Frenštát pod Radhoštěm

IČO 00297852

Buyer profile lacks mandatory machine readability. The supplier portfolio is relatively broad.

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

40%
average 49%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
„Stavební úpravy Domu kultury ve Frenštátě pod Radhoštěm“
Stavební práce
5
Ø5 in industry
Svoz odpadu pro město Frenštát pod Radhoštěm
Služby související s likvidací odpadů a odpady
2
Ø2 in industry
Snížení energetické náročnosti přístavby Radnice ve Frenštátě pod Radhoštěm
Stavební úpravy komerčních budov
1
Ø7 in industry
Obnova bruslení ve sportovním areálu Pod Horečkami ve Frenštátě pod Radhoštěm
Stavební práce
2
Ø5 in industry
Vybudování sběrného dvora ve Frenštátě pod Radhoštěm
Stavební práce
5
Ø5 in industry

Winner concentration

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

78%
average 55%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume (Kč)
SMP CZ, a.s.
6 58,590,883
AVE CZ odpadové hospodářství s.r.o.
1 32,974,512
COMMODUM, spol. s r.o.
1 21,085,456
TURČINA s.r.o.
3 20,948,447
Společnost „B a T Brno“ , správce a společník č. 1 BaP holding a.s.,společník č. 2 TENZA, a.s.
1 17,759,000
Other suppliers 20 79,175,244

Pro-competitive tools

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

80%
average 59%

Public procurement share on total purchases

What fraction of purchases was made under procurement law?   detailed info 

60%
average 66%
Purchases Volume (Kč)
Public procurement 285,780,062
Unregulated purchases 506,011,587
Total 791,791,649

Competitive contracting

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

88%
average 91%

Consistent conduct

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

54%
average 77%

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

94%
average 91%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 3% (1 from 35)
Final or estimated price not published 6% (2 from 35)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 35)
Missing supplier ID 17% (6 from 35)
Missing buyer ID 0% (0 from 35)
Wrong buyer name 0% (0 from 35)
Call and award notices contradict each other 0% (0 from 35)
Missing call for tenders 0% (0 from 35)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

0%
average 38%
Check Result
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 29% (contracts)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 1.65 (average mistakes per contract)