Logical order of BTs in GR-Lot-Deadlines1

[JanEmde]

It would be more logical to adjust the order of the BTs in group GR-Lot-Deadlines1 to the actual times of the deadlines. For example, the "Deadline Receipt Tenders" should come after the "Deadline Receipt Requests".

If the actual order of the deadlines were mapped in the notice type definitions, this would improve the automatic generation of the input forms.

[encampaen]

If I understand correctly, you're referring to BT-131 (Deadline Receipt Tenders) and BT-1311 (Deadline Receipt Requests). If that’s the case, please note that:

BT-131 is only required in single-stage procedures
BT-1311 is only required in multi-stage procedures

With the current implementation of live validations (using EFX), these two fields should never appear together in the same display group nor indeed in the same notice, as they depend on the procedure type.

If these are not the fields you’re referring to, please provide them in your reply.

[JanEmde]

I know that these two fields should not be filled at the same time. However, at the clear request of our users, we always display all possible fields of a notice type. Of course with a corresponding indication as to which fields are to be filled and when. The correct sorting of BT-131 and BT-1311 would therefore also be helpful for us.

Nevertheless, I don't just refer to the two BTs, but to the entire group GR-Lot-Deadlines1. For example, in subtype 16 the deadlines and dates are arranged as follows:

1. Deadline Receipt Tenders (BT-131)
2. Dispatch Invitation Tender (BT-130)
3. Deadline Receipt Requests (BT-1311)
4. Additional Information Deadline (BT-13)

It would make more logical sense to arrange them as follows:

1. Additional Information Deadline (BT-13)
2. Deadline Receipt Requests (BT-1311)
3. Dispatch Invitation Tender (BT-130)
4. Deadline Receipt Tenders (BT-131)