State-owned enterprises • 2022

Správa silnic Moravskoslezského kraje, příspěvková organizace

IČO 00095711

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

7.
ranking
76%
Zindex

Zindex je pro nás rozcvička.

Najít rizika ve veřejných zakázkách →

Bidder participation

Is the level of competition satisfactory?   detailed info 

77%
average 47%
Largest contracts
Industry
Bids
Zajištění letní a zimní údržby na silnicích v oblasti Bílovec na rok 2018-2020
Repair, maintenance and associated services related to roads and other equipment
2
Ø1 in industry
Silnice II/473 - rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 473-009 nad tratí SŽDC Havířov-Ostrava Bartovice v obci Šenov
Construction work for highways, roads
4
Ø5 in industry
Silnice II/445 - rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 445-032 přes řeku Opavu ve Vrbně pod Praděde
Construction work for bridges
6
Ø4 in industry
Silnice III/48416 Frýdlant nad Ostravicí rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 48416-3
Construction work for bridges
4
Ø4 in industry
Speciální vozidla silniční údržby
Road-maintenance vehicles
2
Ø2 in industry

Winner concentration

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

86%
average 83%
Largest suppliers Contracts count Contracts volume Kč
STRABAG a.s.
11 167,229,224
IDS - Inženýrské a dopravní stavby Olomouc a.s.
10 140,282,859
EUROVIA CS, a.s.
6 107,508,036
COLAS CZ, a.s.
6 95,789,161
SWIETELSKY stavební s.r.o.
6 88,214,571
Other suppliers 242 999,286,041

Pro-competitive tools

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

44%
average 37%
Tool Contracts count
Extended deadlines 4% (5 from 140)
Nonprice competition 20% (37 from 185)
Division into lots 21% (38 from 185)
E-auction and DPS 0% (0 from 185)
Innovative procedure 0% (0 from 185)

Competitive contracting

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

97%
average 76%
Contract
Reason for negotiated procedure without publication
Original contract (Kč) Contract modification / NPWP (Kč)
Silnice III/48416 Frýdlant nad Ostravicí rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 48416-3
Contract modification
31,928,187 2,513,458 (+8%)
Rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 484-005 přes horský potok u myslivny Baraní za obcí Bílá
Contract modification
13,080,279 2,384,685 (+19%)
Silnice III/4703 – rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 4703-1 přes Lučinu na ul. Počáteční ve Slezské Ostravě
Contract modification
28,698,724 2,306,794 (+9%)
VT SEDLINKA v km 2,500 - 5,150; SO5 - Úprava LB koryta podél komunikace III/01125
Contract modification
14,469,150 1,322,816 (+10%)
Silnice III/4808 - rekonstrukce mostu ev.č. 4808-8 přes řeku Lubinu v obci Skorotín
Contract modification
9,768,015 1,182,018 (+13%)

Consistent conduct

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

91%
average 60%
Type of flaw Result
Issued tenders without published result 1%
Cancelled contracts 7%
Average requirements modifications count 0.22
Average decision length 39.84 days

Journal data quality

Does buyer publish vital data in official journal?   detailed info 

97%
average 96%
Type of flaw Contracts count
Bidders count not published 1% (1 from 185)
Procedure type not published 0% (0 from 185)
Missing buyer ID 5% (10 from 185)
Missing call for tenders 1% (2 from 185)
Missing winning price 0% (0 from 185)
Contract modification by more than 50 % 0% (0 from 185)

Buyer profile data quality

Does the buyer profile fulfill the legal requirements?   detailed info 

12%
average 44%
Is the buyers website consistent with central procurement registry? 79% (zakázek z 178 ve Věstníku)
Are there obvious flaws or inconsistencies within the data? 2.18 (average mistakes per contract)
Are small scale tenders published on a buyer profile? (Compared to quantity of 178 tenders under the law)
0 - 250k Kč 0 zakázek
250k - 500k Kč 0 zakázek
500k - 1m Kč 0 zakázek
more than 1mil Kč 0 zakázek

Supplier feedback

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

91%
average 91%
There is insufficient data for score calculation. The indicator is not included in the evaluation and it is going to be taken into account next year.