Over six million euros will cost the construction of the Special Institute building in Shtime. The Ministry of Health (MoH) awarded the contract to a company whose bid was among the most expensive submitted in the tender. The process has raised suspicions of procurement procedure violations and favoritism toward the selected company. 

Majlinda Ibrahimi 

The Ministry of Health (hereafter: the contracting authority) in May 2025 awarded a contract worth over six million euros to the company “Raf II” for constructing the Special Institute building in Shtime, even though its bid was among the highest-priced in the tender. Meanwhile, the economic operator (Fitorja LLC) with the most expensive bid was disqualified from the process because its offer exceeded the estimated value of the contract of 6.8 million euros. Concerns regarding irregularities in this process were raised from the very first stage of bid evaluation. After analysing the bid submitted by the recommended economic operator, competing economic operators assessed that the contracting authority had failed to comply with public procurement legislation by bypassing several mandatory qualification criteria required for the selected company. 

Table 1. Bidding Economic Operators and Their Offer Values 

The procurement process was suspended for more than three months due to complaints submitted to the Procurement Review Body (PRB) by bidding economic operators such as “BM Group L.L.C”, “GEO Agri Construction L.L.C & Conex & Pepa Group”, “Fitorja L.L.C” who demanded a full re-evaluation of the offers. A PRB appointed expert (No. 106/25) recommended the case to be returned for re-evaluation, highlighting the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the experience and technical capacity of the economic operator “RAF II.” Nevertheless, the PRB’s final decision ruled in favour of the contracting authority, emphasizing that there was no favouritism and that the examination, evaluation, and comparison of the tenders were conducted in full accordance with the provisions of the Law on Public Procurement (LPP).    

Suspicions of Favoritism and the Suspension of the Procedure 

In February 2025, the MoH suspended the procurement activity, which had been initiated in October 2024 for the construction of this healthcare institution’s buidling in the village of Zborc, Shtime, following the submission of three complaints by economic operators (Conex L.L.C., BM Group L.L.C. dhe Fitorja L.L.C) to the PRB. According to the claims submitted by the economic operators (Conex L.L.C., and BM Group L.L.C.) the contracting authority acted in violation of Article 72, paragraph 1 of the LPP, by requesting additional clarifications solely from the economic operator RAF II, which had been recommended for the contract. LPP does not permit preferential treatment of a single bidder, rather, it requires equal treatment for all economic operators participating in the procedure. 

Meanwhile, according to Article 59, paragraph 2, during the process of evaluation, examination, and comparison of bids, the contracting authority may, in writing, request a tenderer to provide written clarification regarding any aspect of its bid. 

The economic operator Fitorja L.L.C. also requested compliance with Article 59 of the Law on Public Procurement in its complaint, emphasizing that the tender dossier had specified “the most economically advantageous tender” as the evaluation criterion, rather than “the lowest price”. According to the operator, the contracting authority was obliged to conduct a thorough and comparative evaluation of all bids based on the criteria set out in the tender documents, as required by Article 59 of the LPP. 

Favoritism toward this company was also identified in the PRB expert’s report (No. 106/25), which pointed out that the contracting authority had discriminated against other economic operators by requesting clarifications solely from the recommended company, whose offer was one of the most expensive but within the tendering budget. Meanwhile, it did not seek clarification from the complaining economic operator, “BM Group” regarding its implementation timeline. 

There were different assessments between the reviewing expert and the final PRB decision. The main point of contention concerns whether the contracting authority was obligated to request additional clarification from the economic operator, given that the dynamic plan, which according to the Tender Dossier criteria was scheduled to be submitted with the bids of the economic operators by November 18, 2024, was assessed as incomplete by the economic operator “BM Group”. 

The reviewing expert assessed that under such circumstances, the contracting authority should have sought additional clarification, based on Article 72 of the LPP. “The contracting authority may invite economic operators to complete or clarify the certificates and documents submitted in accordance with Articles 65-71 of this law”, article 72 of the LPP. 

However, the PRB ruled otherwise. According to the PRB’s decision, requests for additional clarification are only permissible for minor technical issues and not for inconsistencies that affect the essential content of the offer. “The dynamic plan dated 21.10.2024 and as such does not provide accurate data about the implementation of this project, including the deadlines for the execution of the works,” the decision reads. “However, the PRB does not support the part of the expert report regarding additional clarifications because in such cases, Article 72 of the LPP cannot be applied, knowing that the same contradicts the basic principles of public procurement – material change of the file which contradicts the legal provisions of Article 59 of the LPP,” the decision further reads. 

Regarding these allegations of favoritism, the winning company, “RAF II” has not provided any response even though it was required by the author of this article. 

Change of Criteria in Violation of the Law on Public Procurement 

Ten (10) days before the deadline for the submission of bids, a change was made to the previously established criteria, requiring economic operators to prove possession of 2 million euros in a bank account or access to an unconditional loan. This amendment is in violation of the LPP, as Article 44 stipulates that deadlines set by the contracting authority must allow sufficient time for economic operators to prepare and submit their bids adequately. 

“Any time limit set by the contracting authority for the receipt of tenders or requests to participate must be sufficient to give interested economic operators sufficient time to prepare and submit the documents in question,” it states in Article 44. 

The MoH extended the deadline by another ten (10) days only after a complaint was submitted on 6 of November 2024 by “Adra Group Construction L.L.C.” The Ministry stated that the initial deadline was set at 25 days until 11 of November, but following the request for extension, and in the interest of broader competition, the deadline for bid submission was extended to November 18, 2024. 

Failure to Comply with the Criteria Specified in the Tender Dossier 

The contracting authority (MoH) published the notice regarding the contracting authority’s decision 64 days after the opening of the bids, recommending the contract for RAF II. According to Article 40, paragraph 40.3 of Regulation No. 001/2022 on Public Procurement, contracting authorities are obliged to publish the notice of the contracting authority’s decision, along with the name of the economic operator recommended for the contract, within the shortest possible time and no later than 30 days from the opening of the bids. This period may be extended only in exceptional and justified cases, for an additional period of 20 days. However, there is no justification provided for the delay caused in the evaluation of the bids. 

In addition to the delays, the Ministry is also suspected of not adhering to the very criteria it set in the tender dossier. Concerns have been raised regarding inconsistencies between the documentation submitted by the selected company and the requirements outlined in the tender dossier. According to the dossier and the contract notice, economic operators were required to demonstrate experience with similar projects amounting to at least 9 million euros, confirmed through acceptance certificates issued by the relevant municipalities. However, the selected company did not submit such a certificate. 

Following a review of the submitted evidence, the reviewing expert found that “RAF II” did not possess an acceptance certificate but only a request for technical acceptance dated October 16, 2024, a fact also acknowledged by the contracting authority in its decision on the request for re-evaluation. While the decision confirms this fact, it states that the contracting authority considered acceptable the documentation received from “Raf II”, after the contracting authority said that it seeks clarifications and verified that the project had been accepted by the construction inspectorate. However, the economic operator is required to submit evidence according to the tender specifications. 

Further inconsistencies were noted in the documents provided to prove possession of machinery and equipment. The winning company submitted documents in a foreign language. The contracting authority admitted it could not evaluate the documents because they were not understood. Article 59 of the LPP requires that evidence must be examined, evaluated, and compared. 

The Ministry acknowledged that the documents were in foreign languages and that this posed a challenge for the contracting authority in verifying the authenticity of the evidence. According to the reviewing expert’s report (No. 106/25), the contracting authority did not conduct any evaluation of the machinery-related documentation. 

Out of the two claims submitted by economic operators that the selected company failed to meet the qualification criteria, the PRB addressed only one, the lack of an acceptance certificate, and did so without offering a full explanation, stating instead that the matter would be left to the discretion of the available evidence. 

Failure to Meet Deadlines by the PRB 

Beyond the suspected violations in the procurement phase by the MoH, the PRB also failed to comply with the LPP. The institution exceeded the legal deadline for reviewing complaints submitted by economic operators against the contracting authority’s decision following the evaluation of company bids. According to Article 117 of the LPP, the PRB has a maximum of 34 days to review a complaint. 

Four complaints were submitted to the PRB. For two of the complaints, filed by the economic operators “BM Group” (No. 106/25) and “Conex L.L.C” (No. 105/25), PRB issued a decision only 74 days after their submission. 

Meanwhile, the other two complaints from the economic operators “Fitorja L.L.C” (No. 108/25) and “Ideal Partners L.L.C” (No. 1118/24) were reviewed within the legal deadline — the first due to withdrawal, and the second was dismissed because the economic operator did not initially request for the reconsideration to the contracting authority before filing a complaint with the PRB. 

Residents’ Discontent Over the Project 

Meanwhile, the relocation of the institute from the centre of Shtime to the village of Zborc has sparked dissatisfaction among local residents. They have complained about being excluded from the public consultation process by the Municipality of Shtime, as required by Article 19 of Law No. 04/L-174 on Spatial Planning. 

Resident involvement in the issuance of construction permits is also mandated by Article 40, paragraph 2 of Law No. 04/L-110 on Construction. 

Residents have signed a petition demanding the suspension of the construction permit issued for this project. At a Municipal Assembly meeting held in January 2025, the Mayor of Shtime stated that no public hearing was organized because the plot designated for construction does not administratively belong to any specific locality. According to him, “this plot does not fall within any of the villages; it is located within the territory of the new municipal development plan, called the ‘new city,’ and does not belong to Belinc, Godanc, or Zborc”. 

The Municipality of Shtime has not provided access to public documents related to the issuance of the construction permit requested by the author of this article on 7th of April. A complaint has been filed to the Information and Privacy Agency, while the MoH maintains that all legal procedures were followed in this process. 

The construction of the Special Institute’s building represents a significant project for improving institutional care conditions. However, doubts about the legality of the procurement procedures and the issuance of the building permit have raised concerns that could jeopardize the project’s implementation by required standards. 

Disclaimer: 

This article was produced under the project “Encouraging transparent, accountable and efficient public money spending through public procurement in Kosovo” funded by the European Union and implemented by Democracy Plus (D+). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of D+ or the European Union.