Procuring the Ministry of Infrastructure “states in property” does not give KCPP papers for the 38 million tender

The Ministry of Infrastructure has announced the winners of the tender “Enhancing National Road N25, Pristina-Bessi Podujevo.

Five contracts are being signed against the Public Procure Law, favouring different companies. After the winners have been selected, (most of the ministry officials' Homies), the tender procedure lies in the stage of complaints.

The Public Procuration Regulatory Commission has confirmed a report by Periscop that it did the day before, that the ministry's procurement office has set an illegal criterion in the tender file for this procurement procedure.

KCPP has issued an opinion of the ministry, urging it to improve a set criterion in the tender procedure, but that the Ministry's procurement, which is led by Nexhat Krasniqi, has ignored it.

Periscop has had access to this opinion in which the KCPP has written that one of the conditions that must be met is that the economic operator must offer evidence that it has successfully completed similar contracts through the three-year period” and not as the ministry has set the criterion in which it has written that the company should provide “to provide evidence that it has successfully completed similar contracts, (reversing) from the release date for the” contract.

So as it turns out, the Ministry has not specified a time course, which is a conflict with the law.

“Recommissioned to the Infrastructural Ministry Accounting Authority, which in the case of setting out the requirements for/responsive and qualifications to comply with Article 69.6.2 of the LPP, which specifys “lists with which all work projects and construction activities carried out in the past three years are specified in the recommendation.

CRPP Opinion

Regarding this antilegal criterion, Periscopi reported on January 16th, 2023.

So why did he issue an opinion-recommunition, anyway, KRPP has picked up the problem at “bisht”, in connection with this tender.

Periscopi has made an analysis of the selective criteria that are set by the ministry to determine the winners. From the findings, it has resulted that the Ministry's procurement has set the evaluation criteria for contracting that are contrary to the Public Procurement Law.

Regarding this scandal, he has not reacted. KRPP. At least there's nothing official he might have tried to stop.

Unlike other times, the more favourable tender () criteria that rarely apply in Kosovo has been defined as the criterion of giving the 38 million contract, in which the Infrastructural Ministry in candidate selection claimed a cost-fixing approach instead of just the price for compensation of a contract.

So, the ministry has decided to proceed with the economically favourable Tennder (TEMF) and go directly on the assessment of contracting, but the criteria it has set in assessment of contract giving are criteria that have to do another selection process.

The difference between the selection criteria and the giving criteria should be clear, as two types of criteria are used in different phases of assessment, which serve different purposes.

Periscope has found that three of the five criteria for assessing contract-making, have to do with selection criteria and, as such, should not be set for assessment, as the ministry has set the requirements for signing the contract.

What appreciative criteria are contrary to the law?

The request “The company's experience (reference)” is determined under 69 in the Public Procurement Law, is qualification criterion and no criteria for contracting.

“Staff experience”, and this is also determined in Article 69 at the LPP and is the qualification criterion.

“Pajisjet” ) is defined in the LPP's Article 69 is the criterion for qualifications.

Selective criteria apply to determine which economic operators (the bidders or candidates) are qualified and potentially able to meet the contract. They answer the question: “Who can do the job?”

The giving criteria apply to determine which tender that meets specifications and requirements (from those qualified and potentially able to conduct the contract) offers the best solution.

The difference between selection criteria and reward criteria is very important.

Selective criteria focus on “ferator” and input criteria focus on “ference”. A clear distinction between the two criteria should be maintained throughout the procurement process./Periscopi/

You can read the article Perscope reported on these scandals:

38 million for Pristina road ? Podujevo: Libun Aliu ministry seeks to assess with illegal tender criteria