Small cities • 2022 • past ranking

Město Litvínov

IČO 00266027

Data on buyer profile have relatively good quality. Court found serious misconduct.

70.
ranking
73%
zIndex

Zindex je pro nás rozcvička.

Najít rizika ve veřejných zakázkách →

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

68%
average 51%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
Most přes ulici Mezibořská v Litvínově
Construction work
5
Ø4 in industry
Výstavba dopravního terminálu města Litvínov
Construction work for buildings relating to road transport
9
Ø5 in industry
Stavební úpravy komunikací a VO okrsek ul. Seifertova v Litvínově
Paths and other metalled surfaces
10
Ø4 in industry
Modernizace vzduchotechniky objektu Citadely, ul. PKH, č.p. 1720, Litvínov
Ventilation and air-conditioning installation work
4
Ø4 in industry
Přístavba technického zázemí pro JSDH Litvínov - Hamr, Jandečkova č.p.20
Construction work
7
Ø4 in industry

Winner concentration

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

96%
average 86%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume Kč
Metrostav a.s.
1 53,210,091
Vodohospodářské stavby, společnost s ručením omezeným
2 52,942,465
FIRESTA-Fišer, rekonstrukce, stavby a.s.
1 49,229,448
HERKUL a.s.
6 31,472,159
EP ENERGY TRADING, a.s.
2 13,314,528
Other suppliers 175 434,015,984

Pro-competitive tools

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

46%
average 27%
Tool Contracts count
Extended deadlines 29% (4 from 14)
Nonprice competition 3% (1 from 32)
Division into lots 22% (7 from 32)
E-auction 3% (1 from 32)
Innovative procedure 0% (0 from 32)

Public procurement share on total purchases

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

70%
average 68%
Purchases Volume (Kč)
Public procurement 512,538,421
Small scale tenders 187,070,375
Unregulated purchases 715,911,112
Total 1,415,519,908

Competitive contracting

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

79%
average 87%
Contract
Reason for negotiated procedure without publication
Original contract (Kč) Contract modification / NPWP (Kč)
Výstavba dopravního terminálu města Litvínov
Contract modification
53,210,091 8,670,516 (+17%)
Most přes ulici Mezibořská v Litvínově
Contract modification
98,458,897 4,335,057 (+5%)
Stavební úpravy sportovišť na území města Litvínova
Contract modification
6,930,426 2,779,830 (+41%)
Přístavba technického zázemí pro JSDH Litvínov - Hamr, Jandečkova č.p.20
Contract modification
9,683,843 1,184,864 (+13%)
Stavební úpravy komunikací v ul. Gorkého (PKH) a ul. Ke Střelnici v Litvínově-II.etapa
Contract modification
6,089,058 545,526 (+9%)

Consistent conduct

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

42%
average 60%
Type of flaw Result
Issued tenders without published result 0%
Cancelled contracts 23%
Average requirements modifications count 2.00
Average decision length 120.15 days

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

100%
average 98%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 0% (0 from 36)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 36)
Missing buyer ID 0% (0 from 36)
Missing call for tenders 0% (0 from 36)
Missing winning price 0% (0 from 36)
Contract modification by more than 50 % 0% (0 from 36)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

90%
average 49%
Check Result
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 100% (contracts)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 0.40 (average mistakes per contract)
Are small scale tenders published on a buyer profile? (Compared to quantity of 35 tenders under the law)
0-250K 50 tenders
250K-500K 37 tenders
500K-1000K 22 tenders
1000K+ 38 tenders

Supplier feedback

Have the tenders according to companies been procured fairly and professionally?   detailed info 

80%
average 81%

Buyer did not get enough feedback (yet) to get a statistically relevant rating from his tender participants. Thus he gets standard rank of 80 %.