Large cities • 2016

Statutární město Opava

IČO 00300535

Large volume of money is spent without open competition. Data on buyer profile have relatively good quality.

29.
ranking
72%
zIndex

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

39%
average 63%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
Realizace energetických úspor na vybraných objektech v majetku Statutárního města Opavy metodou EPC
Energetické a související služby
4
Ø3 in industry
SFC- víceúčelová hala a hřiště
Výstavba sportovních hal
2
Ø4 in industry
DODATEK č. 1 – „SFC – víceúčelová hala a hřiště“
Výstavba sportovních hal
1
Ø4 in industry
ZŠ Kylešovice - U Hřiště (zateplení + výměna oken)
Stavební úpravy školních budov
11
Ø5 in industry
DODATEK č. 1 - "ZŠ Kylešovice - U Hřiště" (zateplení + výměna oken)
Stavební úpravy školních budov
1
Ø5 in industry

Winner concentration

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

88%
average 76%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume (Kč)
Strabag a.s.
5 101,414,446
Ostravské Stavby a.s.
8 60,465,452
Femont Opava s.r.o.
2 57,676,715
Tomáš Straub s.r.o.
2 52,224,355
Omlux, spol. s r.o.
2 48,562,721
Other suppliers 60 389,660,065

Public procurement share on total purchases

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

67%
average 57%
Purchases Volume (Kč)
Public procurement 710,003,756
Unregulated purchases 850,110,785
Total 1,560,114,540

Competitive contracting

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

6%
average 77%
Contract
Reason for negotiated procedure without publication
Price (Kč)
DODATEK č. 1 – „SFC – víceúčelová hala a hřiště“
Dodatečné práce
28,476,715
DODATEK č. 1 - "ZŠ Kylešovice - U Hřiště" (zateplení + výměna oken)
Dodatečné práce
25,964,611
DODATEK č. 1 - "ZŠ Edvarda Beneše" (zateplení + výměna oken)
Dodatečné práce
23,956,928
DODATEK Č. 1 "Opava - Městské sady"
Not disclosed
23,250,918
Zpevněné plochy městských parků - dodatek č.2
Not disclosed
21,605,037

Consistent conduct

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

80%
average 65%
Type of flaw Result
Issued calls 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 

95%
average 83%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 5% (4 from 79)
Final or estimated price not published 25% (20 from 79)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 79)
Missing supplier ID 1% (1 from 79)
Missing buyer ID 0% (0 from 79)
Wrong buyer name 0% (0 from 79)
Call and award notices contradict each other 0% (0 from 79)
Missing call for tenders 1% (1 from 79)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

76%
average 46%
Check Result
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 88% (contracts)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 0.56 (average mistakes per contract)

Supplier rating

Do the risky firms win frequently?   detailed info 

94%
average 84%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Supplier founded less than 180 days before contract award 0% (0 from 79)
Supplier with over 75 % of turnover from public procurement 0% (0 from 79)
Subcontractor share above 50 % 1% (1 from 79)
Supplier demise shortly after contract 0% (0 from 79)
Supplier bankruptcy 0% (0 from 79)
Supplier donating to political party 4% (3 from 79)
Supplier did not publish financial results on time 11% (9 from 79)