Valmir Ilazi

“The procurement procedure is cancelled due to the minister’s failure to sign the contract” – a phrase repeated in dozens of cases, now turning into a harmful precedent created by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) and its subordinate institutions. These cancellations, in violation of the law, undermine the rights of economic operators and challenge the principles of transparency and accountability in public procurement.

Between 2020 and 2025, an unusual and concerning practice has emerged in the public procurement system: the cancellation of procurement activities after the publication of the contract award notice. Even though administrative procedures have been completed, contracting authorities (CAs), mainly under the MIA, have cancelled contracts after publishing the B08 Contract Award Notice for contracts valued over seven (7) million euros solely because the minister did not sign them. This situation is creating a harmful precedent for the integrity of public procurement by: (i) transforming the signing of contracts from a legal obligation into an action subject to the minister’s discretion, and (ii) allowing executive interference in the final stage of the procurement process, precisely after all formal and administrative steps have been completed.

What does the law require, and what is happening in practice?

The Law on Public Procurement (LPP), specifically Article 26[1], requires that high-value contracts should be signed by the minister after they are signed by the procurement officer and the chief administrative officer. This final step aims to ensure oversight of legality and proper use of public funds. Furthermore, the Public Procurement Regulation requires that the contract should be signed within 30 days of the publication of the contract award notice, except in cases of complaints or decisions by the supervisory body[2]. However, in practice, the ten contracts analyzed remained unsigned by the minister not only beyond the 30-day deadline but for up to 1,200 days, after which they were cancelled without documented or justified grounds.

This unjustified delay in signing the contracts is linked to another incorrect procedural practice: the cancellation of procedures in contradiction with the legal rules. CAs are directly using form B10 – Notice of Procurement Activity Cancellation, before first publishing form B58 – Notice on the CA’s Decision, as required by procurement rules.

This approach contradicts the provisions of the LPP and the Public Procurement Regulation, because the publication of B58 is essential to ensure: (i) the right of the economic operator to request a review within the CA, and (ii) the right to pursue further legal remedies before the Procurement Review Body (PRB) if it remains dissatisfied with the CA’s review decision. Therefore, cancelling the procedure with form B10 without prior publication of B58 effectively denies economic operators these legal rights, and in cases where they submit a complaint to the PRB, it is rejected as late or inadmissible.

In the case of complaint no. 898/25 submitted by Seyntex NV against the Kosovo Police, the PRB concluded that the CA’s reasoning for interrupting the procedure is not foreseen in the legal provisions. The CA is obliged to act in accordance with the law and ensure the legality of every action, and this must be verified not only before initiating the procurement activity but also at later stages not at the moment of publishing the contract award notice (B08), when the contract signing is expected. In this case, the PRB recommended that the complainant, regarding the CA’s unlawful cancellation of the procurement activity, may address the competent court to protect their rights.

Meanwhile, the Regulatory Commission for Public Procurement (RCPP) has been informed of several cases concerning the incorrect practice of cancelling procurement procedures by CA but has so far not taken any concrete action or issued any official notice to CA to ensure the legality of the process.

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Kosovo Police, and Emergency Management Agency: Contracts cancelled after announcing the winner

The research includes the ministry itself, the Kosovo Police, and the Emergency Management Agency (EMA). Each of them has cases of procurement activities cancelled after the winner was announced.

The Kosovo Police appears to be the most affected institution, with five procurement activities cancelled after the publication of the contract award notice, with a total value of around five (5) million euros. In these cases, the contracts remained pending signature for a accumulated period of 1,451 days before being cancelled. EMA recorded three cancelled activities with a total value of over 1.8 million euros. These contracts all together remained unsigned for 3,114 days. Even the MIA itself cancelled two procurement activities after publishing the contract award notice, with a total value of around 600,000 euros and a waiting period of 108 days prior to cancellation.

Consequences for public projects and institutions

Failure to sign contracts, especially when no legal justification is provided, leads to severe consequences, including:

• Project delays lasting years: Construction of the Training Dormitory – 1,229 days pending; Firefighting equipment – 1,073 days; Firefighter and police uniforms – 812 and 194 days, directly affecting operational capacity.
• Increased financial costs: Inflation, rising prices, and the need to reassess projects lead to additional expenses.
• Legal uncertainty for institutions: Awarded economic operators may seek compensation for loss of profit, bidding costs, or damages for deadline overruns.
• Market uncertainty and harm to competition: Businesses lose confidence in procurement system stability, reducing participation and competition.

Non-signing of contracts affecting public efficiency

The law requires the minister to sign the contract except where there is evidence of violations, the reason is documented in writing, and procedural review is requested. In the monitored cases, there was no documentation of violations, no PRB decisions, no reports from Public Procurement Regulatory Commission (PPRC) or National Audit Office (NAO), and no public explanation. This transforms contract signing into a political-administrative mechanism rather than a legal one.

In this context, awarded economic operators form legitimate expectations. When a contract is cancelled without cause, they may sue the institution, claim damages, and seek reinstatement of their rights. Public institutions risk paying large sums from the budget, administrative costs, and reputational damage.

Such cancellations without legal basis weaken transparency in procurement, accountability principles, and the trust of citizens and economic operators. Fundamentally, this practice signals unjustified executive interference in a process that should remain neutral and protected from political influence.

The data illustrated in this article show a worrying and recurring pattern: lengthy delays, unjustified cancellations, and interferences that undermine the functioning of public procurement.

The Kosovo Police and the Emergency Management Agency have been particularly affected, with projects blocked for years, endangering public safety and institutional efficiency. The law is clear: the minister is obligated to sign the contract unless there is evidence of violations. When this obligation becomes discretionary, the procurement process loses neutrality and credibility. Therefore, final decision-making must be documented, transparent, and justified not unexplained or based on unclear political considerations.

Based on the documented practice and the consequences it produces, it is recommended that CAs comply with the LPP and applicable regulations to guarantee transparency and accountability at all stages of the process. Procedures should not be cancelled after the winner is announced unless fully in accordance with legal rules and clearly documented. CAs must also ensure that economic operators can exercise their legal rights to review and appeal.

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.

[1] Official Gazette of the Republic of Kosovo. Law No. 04/L-042 on Public Procurement, Article 26.

[2] Regulation no. 002/2024 on Public Procurement, Article 42, paragraph 4.