Large cities • 2016

Město Jindřichův Hradec

IČO 00246875

Good buyer. Data on buyer profile have relatively good quality. Enough firms are competing for contracts.

1.
ranking
83%
zIndex

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

83%
average 63%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
Městská hromadná doprava Jindřichův Hradec na období 2016-2025
Služby veřejné silniční dopravy
5
Ø3 in industry
Nakládání s komunálním odpadem v Jindřichově Hradci v letech 2013 - 2015
Služby související s likvidací odpadů a odpady
5
Ø3 in industry
Kanalizace a ČOV místní části Buk, Jindřichův Hradec
Stavební práce na výstavbě kanalizačních sítí
17
Ø5 in industry
Stavební úpravy staré radnice čp. 88/I v Jindřichově Hradci
Stavební úpravy uměleckých a kulturních budov
11
Ø3 in industry
Nakládání s komunálním odpadem v Jindřichově Hradci v letech 2015 - 2016
Služby související s likvidací odpadů a odpady
1
Ø3 in industry

Winner concentration

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

80%
average 76%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume Kč
Čsad Jindřichův Hradec a.s.
1 99,000,000
Ave Cz odpadové hospodářství s.r.o.
2 52,210,849
Swietelsky stavební s.r.o.
7 39,661,415
Jindřichohradecká stavební s.r.o.
5 32,468,404
Jindřichohradecké Montáže s.r.o.
7 28,635,224
Other suppliers 40 158,266,695

Pro-competitive tools

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

58%
average 70%
Tool Contracts count
Extended deadlines 0% (9 from 0)
Nonprice competition 79% (22 from 28)
Division into lots 0% (0 from 28)
E-auction 0% (0 from 28)
Innovative procedure 0% ( from 28)

Public procurement share on total purchases

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

70%
average 57%
Purchases Volume (Kč)
Public procurement 410,242,595
Small scale tenders 0
Unregulated purchases 417,301,525
Total 827,544,120

Competitive contracting

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

97%
average 77%
Contract
Reason for negotiated procedure without publication
Original contract (Kč) Contract modification / NPWP (Kč)
Stavební úpravy staré radnice čp. 88/I Jindřichův Hradec - dodatečné práce I.
Dodatečné práce
- 2,201,003
Splašková kanalizace v místní části Radouňka - dodatečné práce III.
Not disclosed
- 771,838
TRIGON-Rozhledna Rýdův kopec Děbolín - Jindřichův Hradec - Dodatečné práce I
Jediný dodavatel (technické důvody), Krajní naléhavost, Dodatečné práce
- 53,035

Consistent conduct

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

80%
average 65%
Type of flaw Result
Issued tenders without published result 0%
Cancelled contracts 15%
Average requirements modifications count 0.24

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

98%
average 83%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 0% (0 from 62)
Final or estimated price not published 6% (4 from 62)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 62)
Missing supplier ID 0% (0 from 62)
Missing buyer ID 0% (0 from 62)
Wrong buyer name 0% (0 from 62)
Missing call for tenders 0% (0 from 62)
Missing winning price 0% ( from 62)
Contract modification by more than 50 % 0% ( from 62)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

82%
average 46%
Check Result
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 83% (contracts)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 0.03 (average mistakes per contract)
Are small scale tenders published on a buyer profile? (Compared to quantity of tenders under the law)
0-250K 0 tenders
250K-500K 0 tenders
500K-1000K 0 tenders
1000K+ 0 tenders

Supplier rating

Do the risky firms win frequently?   detailed info 

83%
average 84%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Supplier founded less than 180 days before contract award 0% (0 from 62)
Supplier with over 75 % of turnover from public procurement 0% (0 from 62)
Subcontractor share above 50 % 0% (0 from 62)
Supplier demise shortly after contract 0% (0 from 62)
Supplier bankruptcy 0% (0 from 62)
Supplier donating to political party 11% (7 from 62)
Supplier did not publish financial results on time 13% (8 from 62)