Model 2.2.2
A methodology without a built-in winner
The formal/sequential and adaptive/compliant paths share the same legal, competition, ethics, authorization, and documentation boundary.
Separate constructs
Workflow formality is no longer treated as a proxy for competition, contract rigidity, system control, or discretion. Each mechanism has a separate parameter and evidence caveat.
Seven cost dimensions
- activity- and role-level staff effort;
- non-labor administrative overhead plus equal technology cost;
- delay valued with user-supplied cost of inaction;
- selection risk driven by competition effectiveness;
- annual formal-amendment frequency driven by contract rigidity and contract duration;
- a TCO scenario pool that is zero in the central case;
- a scenario bypass rate, not an invented probability curve.
Reading the range
The low and high ΔC values are assumption stress tests, not confidence intervals. A range crossing zero means the model does not identify a robust winner. The break-even threshold is the daily inaction cost at which the central result changes sign. Above it, the faster path in the selected profile has the lower modeled total — and that path is not always adaptive.
PZP boundary
The adaptive path does not change the applicable PZP procedure; it changes only non-mandatory internal work. Publication and standstill periods are not shortened. The optimizer applies the PLN 170,000 threshold and the relevant EU threshold. It offers only the basic mode in the national band and, by default, only open or restricted tender above the EU threshold. Special procedures require a separate legal-grounds assessment.
