Dardan Gashi

Gjilan General Hospital has signed a new cleaning services contract while an existing one was still in force, a clear violation of the Law on Public Procurement (LPP). Despite this, the case remains unresolved within the relevant institutions.

In November 2023, the hospital, acting as the contracting authority, entered into a new contract for cleaning services, despite the previous contract still being valid. This action breaches the LPP, yet neither the Public Procurement Regulatory Commission (PPRC), which has the authority to revoke licenses, nor the Procurement Review Body (PRB), which can recommend disciplinary measures, have taken any action against the responsible procurement officer. The Prosecutor’s Office has stated that an indictment has been filed in the case, but the Court has provided no information on the progress of the legal proceedings. Meanwhile, the contracting authority has refused to grant full access to public documents related to the contract, deepening concerns over transparency and accountability.

On November 2, 2023, the General hospital in Gjilan published a contract award notice on the official public procurement platform. According to the notice, the winning company was “Mburoya” LLC, with a contract valued at €29,638.85 per month, amounting to €118,555.40 for four months. The contract was awarded through a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, commonly referred to as a single-source contract.

Under Article 35 of the LPP, the use of the negotiated procedure without publication is permitted only in exceptional cases, such as unforeseen extreme urgency, lack of competition due to technical reasons, exclusive rights held by a single provider, or when continuity of service requires an extension with the same contractor. In this case, none of these conditions were met.

Furthermore, the hospital already had a valid contract in place with the economic operator “Aroma Plus” LLC, signed on March 10, 2023. That contract was legally binding until a new one was awarded through a regular procurement procedure, which had not occurred.

Despite being aware of this situation, on November 2, 2023, the Monitoring Department of the PPRC sent an official recommendation, explicitly stating that the contracting authority was not entitled to sign a new contract while the existing one remained in force. Nevertheless, the hospital’s procurement office ignored this recommendation and proceeded with signing the new contract.

Gjilan General Hospital also denied a formal request for access to public documents related to the newly signed contract with “Mburoya” LLC. In its justification, the contracting authority cited Article 17 of the Law on Access to Public Documents, claiming that disclosure of the documents could jeopardize ongoing legal proceedings, and further referring to a confidentiality claim submitted by the operator regarding business secrecy.

This refusal raises serious concerns about transparency, particularly given that the contract in question is legally contested and has direct financial implications for the public budget.

However, under Article 4, paragraph 1.9 of the Law on Public Procurement (No. 04/L-042), information related to public contracts, including their value, duration, and the procedure followed, cannot be classified as business secrets. Such data is considered public and is essential to ensuring institutional transparency and accountability. Moreover, Article 6 of the Law on Access to Public Documents stipulates that any restriction of access must be necessary and proportionate and may not be used to conceal misconduct or violations of the law.

The procurement office at Gjilan General Hospital also failed to respond to a key question:
“Was the PPRC’s recommendation of November 2, 2023, which explicitly prohibited signing a new contract while the “Aroma Plus” contract was still valid, taken into account?”

This lack of response leaves serious doubts about whether a binding regulatory recommendation was deliberately ignored by the contracting authority.

On the other hand, “Aroma Plus” LLC filed an official complaint with the PRB, challenging Gjilan General Hospital’s decision to award the new contract to “Mburoya” LLC. After reviewing the case, on February 1, 2024, the PRB upheld the complaint as well-founded and issued a final decision annulling the newly signed contract.

The PRB found that the contract had been awarded in violation of Article 35 of the LPP, as the contracting authority had unjustifiably applied the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice. The decision clearly stated that the legal conditions for using such an extraordinary procedure had not been met, since the hospital still had a valid contract in force with “Aroma Plus” LLC, signed on March 10, 2023.

The PRB also determined that the contracting authority violated Article 112 of the LPP by proceeding with the contract signature even after receiving a formal complaint. According to the law, upon receiving such a complaint, the contracting authority is obliged to suspend the procedure. Failure to do so constitutes a serious breach of the law.

Despite this, the contracting authority not only disregarded the recommendation issued by the PPRC but also continued with an unlawful procedure, awarding a contract at a significantly higher cost. The PRB’s decision not only confirms a legal violation but also highlights the failure to ensure fair competition and value for public money, two fundamental principles of proper and transparent procurement.

Under Article 105 of the LPP, PRB decisions are binding for the contracting authority. It is also worth noting that the authority signed the contract with “Mburoya” on the very same day that a formal complaint was filed with the PRB. According to Article 112 of the LPP, signing a contract while a complaint is active, thereby requiring the entire procedure to be suspended, is considered a grave violation.

Despite having the legal authority to recommend the revocation of the procurement officer’s professional certification, the PRB failed to do so. In an official response, the PRB justified its inaction by claiming that such a step should have been taken by the PPRC, which had monitored the activity and identified the violations. The PRB stated that it does not have the authority to intervene in the legal competencies of the PPRC, since each public authority, the PPRC, PRB, and the contracting authorities, has clearly defined legal responsibilities under the law.

However, according to Article 91 of the Public Procurement Rules, both the PRB and PPRC have the authority to initiate procedures for revoking a procurement officer’s professional certification, depending on the circumstances. In this specific case, where a binding PRB decision was not implemented by the contracting authority, which constitutes a serious violation, the PRB had both the legal right and the responsibility to initiate the revocation procedure. Therefore, the claim that only the PPRC had this authority is inaccurate and not in accordance with the applicable regulation.

Another troubling aspect of this case relates to the financial side of the contract. The cleaning service provided by “Mburoya” LCC costs €29,638.85 per month, €7,688.40 more, or approximately 35% higher, than the existing contract with “Aroma Plus”LCC , which was valued at €21,950.45 per month. In other words, for the same service, the contracting authority paid significantly more, without any clear legal or economic justification.

This directly contradicts Article 1 of the LPP, which states that one of the law’s main objectives is the economical, efficient, and effective use of public funds. In this case, not only was a cheaper, existing contract disregarded, but a more expensive contract was awarded, without following standard procedures and with no documented analysis of cost-effectiveness or the necessity for change.

In addition, on June 14, 2025, an official request was submitted to the Basic Prosecution Office in Gjilan to clarify whether the institution was aware of the case and the documented legal violations; whether any criminal complaint had been filed against the responsible procurement officer for suspected abuse of official position or fraud in public procurement; and if not, whether it planned to take action based on the publicly available documentation.

On June 24, the Basic Prosecution Office responded by stating that the case had been registered and was currently under investigation. However, a day later, on June 25, the Prosecution issued a second response, stating that the case was already undergoing judicial proceedings. According to this response, an indictment had been filed on June 27, 2024, under case number PP.I.nr.4/2024, for the criminal offense of “Abuse of Official Position or Authority” under Article 414, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo (CCRK), and that the case was now being handled by the court.

To clarify this contradiction and to determine the current status of the judicial proceedings, an official inquiry was also submitted to the Basic Court of Gjilan. However, no response had been received at the time of this article’s publication.

This case highlights not only the contracting authority’s failure to comply with public procurement law but also a serious lack of institutional accountability on the part of oversight bodies. The silence of the PPRC and the absence of concrete action from the PRB send a troubling message: that public officials may violate the law without consequence. The inaction of competent institutions continues to allow such cases to become entangled in lengthy judicial processes.

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.