Small cities • 2022 • past ranking

Město Krnov

IČO 00296139

Buyer profile has high number of errors. Tender documentation is well prepared, thus there is no need to modify or cancel the procedure.

Show average values  
45%
Bidder participation
87%
Winner concentration
21%
Pro-competitive tools
62%
Public procurement share on total purchases
82%
Legal misconduct
92%
Competitive contracting
85%
Consistent conduct
98%
Journal data quality
22%
Buyer profile data quality
80%
Supplier feedback

Zindex je pro nás rozcvička.

Najít rizika ve veřejných zakázkách →

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

45%
average 51%
Largest contracts
Industry 		Bids
Rekonstrukce a přístavba budovy ZUŠ nám. Míru 151/13 v Krnově
Construction work
8
Ø4 in industry
Rekonstrukce ulic Mikulášské a E. F. Buriana v Krnově
Construction work
6
Ø4 in industry
Splašková kanalizace Ježník - III. a IV. úsek
Sewer construction work
5
Ø6 in industry
Zimní stadion v Krnově - severní tribuna
Construction work
3
Ø4 in industry
Rekonstrukce atletického stadionu v Krnově
Construction work
7
Ø4 in industry

Winner concentration

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

87%
average 86%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume Kč
FICHNA - HUDECZEK a.s.
 3 96,765,328
Agist s.r.o.
 2 48,597,999
SILNICE MORAVA s.r.o.
 1 46,023,037
POHL cz, a.s., odštěpný závod Opava
 1 33,893,745
BERKASTAV s.r.o.
 3 33,866,769
Other suppliers 67 477,368,456

Pro-competitive tools

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

21%
average 27%
Tool Contracts count
Extended deadlines 0% (0 from 8)
Nonprice competition 7% (3 from 43)
Division into lots 5% (2 from 43)
E-auction 0% (0 from 43)
Innovative procedure 5% (2 from 43)

Public procurement share on total purchases

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

62%
average 68%
Purchases Volume (Kč)
Public procurement 508,508,018
Small scale tenders 93,692,169
Unregulated purchases 965,827,491
Total 1,568,027,678

Competitive contracting

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

92%
average 87%
Contract
Reason for negotiated procedure without publication 		Original contract (Kč) Contract modification / NPWP (Kč)
Zázemí sociálních služeb Slezské diakonie Hubčická 9, Krnov
Contract modification 		15,898,000 2,203,583 (+14%)
Obnova místní komunikace ul. Žižkova, Krnov
Contract modification 		9,194,100 2,030,417 (+23%)
Zimní stadion v Krnově - severní tribuna
Contract modification 		32,699,999 1,936,818 (+6%)
Rekonstrukce ulic Mikulášské a E. F. Buriana v Krnově
Contract modification 		46,023,037 1,314,353 (+3%)
ZŠ Dvořákův okruh, Krnov – rekonstrukce školního hřiště
Contract modification 		5,255,284 961,668 (+19%)

Consistent conduct

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

85%
average 60%
Type of flaw Result
Issued tenders without published result 0%
Cancelled contracts 10%
Average requirements modifications count 0.80
Average decision length 78.40 days

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

98%
average 98%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 0% (0 from 44)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 44)
Missing buyer ID 5% (2 from 44)
Missing call for tenders 0% (0 from 44)
Missing winning price 0% (0 from 44)
Contract modification by more than 50 % 2% (1 from 44)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

22%
average 49%
Check Result
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 46% (contracts)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 0.93 (average mistakes per contract)
Are small scale tenders published on a buyer profile? (Compared to quantity of 41 tenders under the law)
0-250K 0 tenders
250K-500K 3 tenders
500K-1000K 10 tenders
1000K+ 21 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 %.