Forum

Th.D

Question: Since you have stated that measures are taken only in cases where a serious, intentional, or repeated violation is proven, has there been any such case that has occurred within CPO?

Answer: In the functioning ofCPO every procedure is documented and auditable.
To date, there have been no proven cases of serious, intentional, or repeated violations that have resulted in disciplinary measures of this level.

It is important to make a clear distinction:
• Differences in legal interpretation between institutions;
• Decisions of appeal bodies that may overturn a procedure;
• or correctable administrative errors, do not automatically constitute a serious or intentional violation.

Every identified case is handled according to internal procedures and in compliance with the legislation in force.
If such a violation were to be established, measures would be taken without hesitation and in accordance with the law.

CPO operates on the basis of the principle of accountability and transparency, not on perceptions, but on proven facts.

Th.D

Question: How is a clear division of competences between CPO and the beneficiary contracting authorities ensured, in order to avoid overlapping responsibilities?

Answer: The division of competences is defined in Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended, as well as in the relevant acts regulating the functioning of OBP as a central purchasing body.

This division is ensured through a clear functional structure:

Contracting / beneficiary authorities:
– define the specific need,
– draft the technical specifications,
– justify the estimated (limit) fund,
– monitor contract implementation and execute payments.

CPO:
– structures and conducts the procurement procedure,
– drafts the Standard Tender Documents (procedural and legal part),
– ensures legality, transparency, and competition throughout the procedure,
– selects the economic operator in accordance with legal rules.

To avoid overlapping responsibilities:
– each procedure is accompanied by clear documentation of roles and responsibilities;
– communication and official correspondence formally record responsibility for each technical or economic element;
– CPO’s legal control is limited to compliance with the law, and does not replace the beneficiary authority in its own responsibilities.

Therefore, responsibilities are clearly divided:
The beneficiary authority determines “what” is needed and oversees implementation;
CPO ensures “how” the procedure is conducted, in accordance with the law.

Th.D

Question: How are cases handled when a beneficiary authority has specific needs that do not fully comply with the standard specifications drafted by CPO?

Answer: In cases where a beneficiary authority has specific needs that fall outside the standard specifications published by CPO, the following procedure is followed:

The Contracting Authority drafts the relevant technical specifications, tailored to the specific need, and provides a technical justification for them.

The specifications are submitted to CPO for technical and legal review, with the aim of:
– verifying compliance with the law,
– avoiding restriction of competition,
– ensuring the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination.

After this review and, where necessary, after the relevant corrections are made, the procurement procedure is published.

Therefore, flexibility exists, but it is exercised within the legal framework and under professional oversight, so that the specific need does not turn into a restriction of competition or create legal risk for the procedure.

Th.D

Question: To what extent are beneficiary authorities involved in the phase of drafting the standard tender documents?

Answer: The involvement of beneficiary authorities is essential in the preliminary phase of the procedure.

Specifically:

Contracting / beneficiary authorities:
– draft the technical specifications,
– calculate and justify the estimated (limit) fund,
– and refer to the catalog published by OBP, for centralized goods and services when they are published and prepared.

The Procurement Unit at CPO:
– drafts the remaining parts of the Standard Tender Documents (STD),
– prepares the qualification criteria (in compliance with the law),
– includes the contractual terms and procedural structure,
– and ensures the legal compliance of the documentation.

Thus, the division of roles is clear:

The beneficiary authority defines the technical need and the economic basis.
OBP structures and manages the procedural documentation in accordance with the law.

This cooperation ensures that the procedure is both technically accurate and legally compliant.

Th.D

Question: What methodology is used for drafting technical specifications, in order not to restrict competition and to respect the principle of non-discrimination?

Answer: The drafting of technical specifications is carried out based on the principles of Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended,
– equality,
– non-discrimination,
– effective competition,
– and transparency.

In practice, the methodology is based on several clear steps:

Documented market study, in order to identify technological alternatives and the economic operators operating in the relevant field.

OBP operates through open and documented public consultation, where all interested economic operators are invited to provide comments on the draft technical specifications.

Drafting specifications on a functional and performance basis, avoiding references to specific brands, models, or specific manufacturers (except in legally justified cases, using the wording “or equivalent”).

Legal and technical verification prior to the launch of the procedure, in order to ensure that the requirements are proportionate and directly related to the subject matter of the procurement.

In the case of OBP, when drafting technical specifications, the market study methodology is published and is based on:
analysis of the current market,
open consultations with economic operators in the relevant field,
and full documentation of every comment or suggestion received.

The objective is for the specifications:
– not to lead to the favoring of a particular operator or brand,
– to be technically accurate,
– and to create conditions for real and equal competition.

In this way, compliance with the principle of non-discrimination and the legality of the procedure is ensured.

Th.D

Question: How are centralized procedures handled for goods/services that undergo frequent technological changes?

Answer: Goods and services with rapid technological development require a more flexible approach than traditional procedures.

In such cases, the following mechanisms are usually used:

Functional technical specifications, not linked to a specific brand or model, but to performance and measurable parameters.
Framework agreements with a limited duration, in order to avoid technological “lock-in” for long periods.
Periodic updating of standardization catalogues, when a significant technological or price change in the market is identified.
Division into lots, to allow the participation of alternative technologies.
In specific cases, the use of competitive dialogue or more dynamic forms of procurement, when the subject matter requires technological adaptation.

The objective is to:
ensure real competition,
avoid favoring outdated technologies,
and guarantee that institutions benefit from up-to-date solutions aligned with market developments.

Therefore, centralization of procurement does not mean rigidity; on the contrary, it requires more continuous market monitoring and more flexible procedural instruments.

Th.D

Question: What mechanisms are used to determine the limit fund under market fluctuations and inflation conditions?

Answer: The determination of the limit fund is not done in a formal or unchanged manner, but on the basis of an updated market analysis.
In general, the following mechanisms are used:

Periodic market monitoring, to identify price increases or decreases;
Market study and request for information from economic operators;
Analysis of previous contracts and reference prices;
Reference to inflation indices and economic factors (currency, transport costs, imports, etc.);
Updating catalogues or price references, when a sustained market change is identified.

The objective is for the limit fund to be:
realistic in relation to the market,
sufficient to guarantee competition,
and at the same time protective of the public budget.

Under conditions of economic fluctuations, market analysis and its documentation are essential elements to avoid failed procedures or unjustified overestimations.

Th.D

Question: Who is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the contract: the OBP or the beneficiary authority?

Answer: According to Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended:
Article 124 stipulates that, after the completion of the procedure and the signing of the contract:
• monitoring the implementation of the contract,
• overseeing the delivery of supplies/services,
• controlling quality and compliance with technical specifications,
• as well as processing payments, are the responsibility of the Beneficiary Authority / Contracting Authority, which is a party to the contract.

Article 125, paragraph 1 provides for the obligation to report to the Public Procurement Agency on the implementation of contracts.

The role of the OBP ends at the stage of conducting the procedure and selecting the economic operator, in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

Meanwhile, systemic monitoring and supervision of reporting are carried out by the Public Procurement Agency, in accordance with its legal competencies.

Therefore, the division of responsibilities is clear:
• OBP conducts the procedure;
• The Beneficiary Authority implements and monitors the contract;
• The Public Procurement Agency oversees reporting and the system at the national level.

Thirrje Per Drejtesi

Question: In many cases, the Public Procurement Commission (KPP) has overturned the evaluations carried out by the CPO’s KVO, where it often becomes apparent that the evaluation was made in violation of the rules of the Public Procurement Law (LPP). What measures are taken against the members of the KVO and the KSHA who make an evaluation contrary to the law?
Answer: A necessary clarification for a healthy institutional debate.

The decisions of the Public Procurement Commission play an essential role in controlling the legality of procurement procedures, but like any administrative body, they do not constitute an absolute source of law.
The legal system itself provides for this: KPP decisions are administrative acts that are subject to control, appeal, and review, including by the administrative courts.

For this reason:
• the overturning or modification of an evaluation by the KPP cannot and should not automatically be interpreted as a legal violation by the KVO or KSHA;
• even less so as a basis for personal measures against members of the committees.

The KPP:
• corrects procedures,
• interprets legal norms,
• but does not replace the professional and legal responsibility of contracting authorities.
Decisions of the Public Procurement Commission are not punitive orders and do not automatically generate personal liability for members of the KVO or KSHA.

If this were the case, then every overturned decision would require:
• an investigation,
• a sanction,
• an individual punishment.

Which does not exist in any serious procurement system in the EU.

The KPP:
• reviews the procedure,
• does not judge individuals,
• does not punish committees.

Measures against members of the KVO or KSHA are taken only when a serious, intentional, or repeated violation is proven, and not because an administrative evaluation was interpreted differently by another administrative body.

In simple terms:
Overturning a decision ≠ violation of the law
Different interpretation ≠ personal fault
Correction of a procedure ≠ punishment of people

Therefore, the idea that every overturned decision must be accompanied by “measures” against the committees is:
• either a lack of understanding of the public procurement system,
• or an attempt at institutional pressure against professionals.

At the Centralized Purchasing Operator (CPO), contrary to forum narratives:
procedures are reviewed,
documents are improved,
the law is respected.

No witch hunts.
No drama.
Just a rule-of-law institution that works.

Edi

Second Question: If there are many bidders, but the winner is the one who has submitted the highest financial offer, what are the reasons why the lowest offer does not win? To summarize, what are roughly the evaluation criteria in a procurement procedure and how does CPO manage to save money for the state budget in procurement procedures? Thank you.
Answer: In cases where there are several bidders, it is not true that the offer with the lowest price always wins.
The law clearly provides that in many procedures the principle of the most economically advantageous tender is applied, where price is only one of the elements. Through scoring, an operator may win who does not necessarily have the lowest price, but has greater technical capacity, better fulfills social or environmental criteria, etc. Therefore, several components are evaluated in a procurement competition under this evaluation method.

Likewise, the offer with the lowest price may not win if:
• legal or financial documents are missing;
• the bid security is missing;
• the manufacturer’s authorization is missing;
• technical specifications are not met;
• quality and safety requirements are not fulfilled, especially in healthcare.

Therefore, a low price without documentation and guarantees is not a valid offer.

In summary, the evaluation criteria in a procurement procedure are divided into three main pillars:
1. Legal and formal – registration, declaration forms, bid security, absence of conflict of interest, etc.;
2. Technical – compliance with specifications, manufacturer authorizations, quality certifications, compatibility, similar contracts, etc.;
3. Economic – price, cost–quality ratio, durability and efficiency of the product or service, balance sheets, annual turnover, etc.

Only the offers that pass all these stages genuinely compete for award.

Regarding savings,CPO manages to save money for the state budget through concrete mechanisms:
• centralization of purchases, which increases volumes and lowers prices;
• increasing competition where the market allows it;
• standardization of technical specifications through catalogues, avoiding favoritism and improvisation;
• full transparency and automatic notifications to economic operators for every tender published in the system, which increases participation in competitions.

The result is:
• offers below the limit fund in most procedures, mainly for public works;
• prices within legal ceilings for regulated products;
• reduction of long-term costs for the state, without compromising quality.

The conclusion is clear:
A single bidder does not constitute a legal violation, the lowest price does not automatically win, and good procurement is the one that balances legality, quality, and financial efficiency.
This is the model followed by CPO.

Edi

Question: Hello. I have several questions, also prompted by some media reports on CPO procedures. The first question: Why does it happen that a procurement procedure has only one bidder, and is such a procedure considered legally regular?
Answer: Hello,
Thank you for your questions; they are very important and are directly related to how public procurement functions in practice.

First of all, a procurement procedure may have only one bidder, and this is fully legally regular.
The Public Procurement Law, as well as EU practices, does not require a minimum number of bidders greater than one, but requires that there be at least one bidder and that the procedure be:
• publicly announced,
• open to all,
• based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

The reasons why only one bidder may participate are often objective and related to the market, such as:
• a limited market for specific products (medicines, medical oxygen, diagnostic kits, maintenance of medical equipment, laundry services, catering services);
• manufacturer authorizations or exclusive patents;
• products regulated by Council of Ministers’ Decisions, where for hospital use only one operator is authorized;
• products that are compatible only with existing systems, etc.

If the procedure is open, with proper documentation and legal criteria, it is valid even with a single bidder.

Xhensila

Question:After the Commission has calculated the limit fund for simplified purchases valued under 100,000 ALL, and the calculated fund value is 80,000 ALL excluding VAT, during the bid evaluation process, the Commission selects as the winning offer an operator who has offered a value of 80,000 ALL excluding VAT. What is the relationship between the calculated limit fund value and the offered value? Should the Commission select an offer that is exactly equal to 80,000 ALL, or can it also select an offer below this value? Thank you!

Answer: Hello Xhensila,
Thank you for your question.
In the case of simplified procurement procedures, when the limit fund determined by the Commission is 80,000 ALL excluding VAT, this amount represents the maximum allowable value that can be accepted as a valid offer.

The Commission may declare as the winner an offer that is:
Equal to the limit fund (i.e., 80,000 ALL), or
Lower than the limit fund (e.g., 75,000 ALL), if it meets the other legal and technical criteria.

What is not allowed is declaring as the winner an offer with a value above the limit fund, as this would exceed the approved ceiling for the contract and would conflict with the applicable legislation.

Therefore, in your example, an offer valued at 80,000 ALL is fully in line with the limit fund and may be declared the winner, provided it also meets the other tender requirements.

Thank you for your interest, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Mikaela

Question:I have a question regarding procurement procedures for purchases under 100,000 LEK. In calculating the contract value limit for the purchase of cleaning materials, I have referred to the prices published by OPB in the catalog, prices that correspond to the market average excluding VAT.
When selecting the winning economic operator, should the commission continue with the same criterion, meaning that from 3 economic offers the commission selects as the winner the operator with the average offer? Or the operator who submits the lowest offer?
Thank you!
Answer: Hello Mikaela,
First of all, we thank you for choosing the catalog prepared and approved by the Centralized Procurement Operator, which has been published not only on the Operator’s official website but also on the official website of the Public Procurement Agency, for calculating the value limit. It is worth noting that these catalogs offer consolidated prices, supported by market studies and analyses, increasing transparency, objectivity, and the unification of inter-institutional practices.
Secondly, Article 11 of the Decision of the Council of Ministers no. 285, dated 19.05.2021 “On the approval of public procurement rules,” as amended, stipulates that contracting authorities may use simplified procedures, such as purchases with a value under 100,000 ALL, for items including similar goods and services, the calculated value of which, within a calendar year, does not exceed the amount of 100,000 (one hundred thousand) ALL. For this type of procedure, contracting authorities may make purchases through a simplified process that includes a request for offers and selection based on the lowest valid price. The use of prices from the CPO catalog in this case serves only to determine the value limit and does not affect the criterion for selecting the winning offer.
In conclusion, the selection of the winning offer in purchases valued under 100,000 (one hundred thousand) ALL and in small-value procedures is made based on the lowest price.
Wishing you all the best in your work!

Marsi

Question:Is a filter applied so that an EO that has a M.K linked to a CA does not compete again for a second procurement object (similar to the first), since both its workforce and its economic side cannot cope with the successful implementation of two M.K simultaneously with different CAs?
Answer: Thank you for your question.
Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended, does not automatically prevent an economic operator (EO) that has an existing contract with a contracting authority (CA) from participating in another procurement procedure for a similar object. However, there is a functional and legal filter called “economic and technical capacity”, which applies precisely this principle that you raise if it is foreseen by the CA.

How is this checked in practice?
During the evaluation procedure, the contracting authority:
1. Sets clear qualification criteria, such as:
•Technical staff and workers available;
•Equipment and logistical means;
•Previous experience;
•Declaration of contracts in progress
2. Requires documentation to prove these capacities, including information on other contracts in progress that may affect the performance of the new contract.
3. If an EO fails to demonstrate that it has sufficient resources to cope with a second similar contract, it may be disqualified for lack of capacity. Legal reference:
• Article 77 of Law no. 162/2020 – Provides that the contracting authority determines the specific qualification criteria, including the ability to perform the contract.
• Article 25 of the Council of Ministers No. 285, dated 19.5.2021, as amended – Determines the types of capacities required and the method of their assessment. A direct prohibition applies to public works contracts regarding the criterion of the technical manager of the construction site according to the provisions of point 2.1 of Instruction No. 2, dated 15.05.2018 "On the implementation of construction works" Which determines that for estimated works with a value of over 30 million lek, the technical manager of the construction site is a resident, full-time at the facility and a graduate in construction engineering.

Conclusion: So, yes, functional filters are applied, not in the form of direct prohibition, but through the assessment of the economic, technical and organizational capacities of the EO. The contracting authority has the right not to allow the winning of a new contract, if the operator does not prove that it can fulfill it independently and effectively, without violating existing contracts.

Gentian

Question:Please, can you explain to me how the scoring is done by the contracting institution?
Answer: Dear Gentian, Thank you for your interest.
The point-based evaluation of bids is carried out by the contracting authority in accordance with Law no. 162/2020 "On Public Procurement", as amended, DCM 285/2021 as amended, as well as the documents of the announced tender. This evaluation is part of the procedure for selecting the "most economically advantageous tender based on cost", which is not based solely on the lowest price, but on a combination of price and other qualitative and economic elements.
How it works in simplified terms:
1. Evaluation criteria are set in the tender documents
The institution announcing the tender clearly specifies in its documents:
• which criteria will be used for evaluation;
• how many points each criterion has;
• and how the evaluation will be done (the methodology).
Examples of common criteria:
• Offered price
• Technical quality of the product or service
• Delivery or implementation time
• Experience in the relevant field
• Technical or functional solutions
• Commitment to quality or environmental standards (e.g., ISO, EMAS, etc.)
2. Each bid receives points for each criterion
The evaluation commission reviews the bids and scores the qualified offers according to the method previously defined in the tender documents.
• For the price criterion, the lowest offer receives the maximum points. Other offers are evaluated proportionally according to a defined formula.
Example: if the price carries 60 points and the lowest offer is 100 lekë, it gets 60 points. An offer of 120 lekë might get 50 points, according to the formula.
• For qualitative criteria (such as technical description, experience, etc.), evaluation is done on a scale from 0 to the maximum points, depending on the quality of the submitted information.
3. Total points for each bid are calculated
The points each operator earns for each criterion are added together to form the total score of the offer.
The winning bidder is the one with the highest total score, provided they meet all legal and technical requirements.
Legal basis for this process includes:
• Article 87 of Law no. 162/2020, as amended – Covers the method of evaluating and ranking offers based on published criteria and point-based evaluation.
• Article 88 of the same law – Defines what constitutes the most economically advantageous offer and that it can be based on price, cost, or quality.
• Article 45 of DCM no. 285, dated 19.05.2021, “On the approval of the public procurement regulation”, as amended – Specifies the method of calculating points and using the lowest cost when more than price is compared.
Conclusion:
Point-based evaluation is a transparent and legally regulated method for selecting the offer that provides the best quality–cost ratio, and not just the cheapest bid.
This method ensures that the contract goes to an operator who, in addition to offering a suitable price, also provides quality, efficiency, and sustainable value for the public institution and society.
If you need further clarifications or more detailed references from the applicable legislation, we are at your disposal.
Thank you!

Adrian

Question:How does OBP guarantee transparency and efficiency in the centralized purchasing processes it carries out?
Answer: Thank you for your interest and question. The Centralized Purchasing Operator guarantees transparency and efficiency in procurement processes through a series of mechanisms established at each stage of the procedure. Transparency is ensured through: • Real-time publication of each procedure on the official website of the Centralized Purchasing Operator and in the electronic procurement system; • Automatic notification of registered economic operators according to categories of interest; • Making standard documentation and unified catalogs available to all parties, for goods mainly free of charge; • Equal access to information for all market operators. Efficiency is achieved through: • Unified and standardized centralization of technical specifications, which reduces the time and costs of preparing documentation; • Combining the needs of contracting authorities in centralized contracts, ensuring economies of scale; • Continuous market monitoring to guarantee fair competition and optimal prices; • Use of the Alb-Zone system for technical drafting and professional referencing of requests. These mechanisms build a sustainable, transparent and reliable process for all participating actors.

Ilir

Question:How much have these services on your site helped economic operators and do you apply fees to economic operators as well as to authorities?
Answer: The services that OBP offers on the official website are designed precisely to facilitate access and transparency for economic operators. Among the most important is the automatic notification of each procurement procedure published by OBP, which is sent to operators who have registered as interested in certain procurement categories. This service is free of charge and helps in the immediate information of EOs without the need for advanced research. Also, each new procedure published by OBP is immediately published on the official website, without restrictions or access barriers for users. This method of communication ensures equality of information for all market participants. OBP does not apply any fee to either economic operators or contracting authorities for access to these services. Contracting authorities are also offered free access to unified and standardized catalogs, as well as to the Alb-Zone system, which supports the drafting and development of technical documentation and standard specifications for procurement procedures. In parallel, we are developing new services dedicated to economic operators, which will further improve interaction with the system and continuously increase transparency.

Martin

Question:Is it allowed to procure maintenance services for 7 different IT systems in a single procurement procedure?

Answer: Hello Martin, to see the complete list of procurement objects covered by the Centralized Purchasing Operator, we invite you to refer to our official website www.obp.al. This list is based on the Decision of the Council of Ministers no. 531, dated 7.9.2023, which has undergone changes and has been expanded with new objects, which are now reflected on our website. However, referring to point 12 of this VKM, the OBP is authorized to develop any type of procurement procedure for goods, services or works required by contracting authorities/entities, even if the objects are not expressly listed, as long as the institution requests assistance and does not have sufficient technical capacities to develop the procedure itself. For any specific case, contact us and we are ready to verify whether the object in question is covered by the OBP or can be treated with a dedicated procedure.

Ina

Question:Is it allowed to procure maintenance services for 7 different IT systems in a single procurement procedure?

Answer: Hello Ina, and thank you for your question! Yes, it is possible to procure the maintenance service for several IT systems in a single procedure, but this depends on some important criteria that must be respected to guarantee legality and competition: 1. The systems must have functional/logical links or be part of a common structure For example, if they are systems operating within the same institution, share a common infrastructure, or require continuous interaction and the merger is justifiable. 2. The technical specification must be clear for each system This avoids ambiguity and helps economic operators understand exactly what is expected of them for each component. 3. It must not exclude competition. If the merger of many systems would prevent the participation of small operators or operators specialized in only one system, then division into lots is recommended. OBP suggestion: • You can use a single procedure with separate lots for each system, giving EOs the possibility to apply for one or several lots. • Or apply a pool of economic operators, when full coverage of all systems is required. In any case, for clear decision-making and good documentation, we suggest preparing a preliminary analysis justifying the choice of procedure structure.

Albion

Question:Can we get advice from you on the use of social and environmental criteria after we have seen that you apply them accurately and clearly?

Answer:Hello Albion, thank you for your question!

Yes, we can definitely provide consultancy. OBP has been trained by national and international bodies on the use of social and environmental criteria in procurement, and we are currently in the process of developing a practical technical guide for wider use. Social and environmental criteria are part of our strategic commitment to sustainable and inclusive purchasing. We have already applied them in several procurement categories where you can easily access them in the system

Era

Question:Is it better to use framework agreements more for public procurement procedures that are ongoing? To save time, human resources and be more effective? And why not for more competitive prices?

Answer:Hello Era, and thank you for the very insightful question! Yes, in practice the use of framework agreements for recurring and predictable procurement is one of the most effective ways to save time, human resources and increase transparency. In the OBP Strategy 2025–2027, the expansion of the use of framework contracts is foreseen, especially in categories where: • the requirements are continuous • the market is known and analyzable, • institutions require more flexible and faster solutions. The benefits are clear: • simplified procedure for public authorities, • better prices due to volume and prior competition, • faster responses to operational needs. And your question “Why not for more competitive prices?” is very relevant. In fact, framework agreements do not exclude competition, on the contrary: • they can be linked to multiple operators and • mini-competitions can be held within them to obtain the best offer at the moment. We are working to make these agreements even more accessible to all CAs, through standardized catalogs and the new e-AlbZone platform.

Eri

Question:Do you think that creating a system for monicompetition would simplify the process? Have you taken steps towards it?

Answer:Hello Eri, thank you for the very pertinent question! Yes, part of the OBP Strategy 2025–2027 is precisely the development of mechanisms for monitoring competition in public procurement, as a way to increase transparency and efficiency. We are currently in the preparatory phase of the new digital platform “e-AlbZone”, which will serve not only for the administration of catalogs and online orders, but also as an instrument for monitoring the market. This platform will help us analyze: • how many operators participate in the procedures, • where there is real competition and where it is absent, • how prices for repetitive goods and services evolve. The goal is to make the process simpler, fairer and more measurable, both for us as a central body, and for the institutions that entrust us with procurement. e-AlbZone will be a monitoring and dynamic platform, giving concrete meaning to the vision of our strategy, "smart purchasing for better public service."

Prokuruesi

Question:Hello. If in a procurement procedure 55% of the limit fund consists of objects procured under the LPP and 45% under the legislation in the field of defense and security: under what legislation is the procedure carried out?

Answer: Greetings and thank you for your interest and question. In cases where a procurement procedure includes a combination of objects covered by both public procurement legislation (LPP) and that in the field of defense and security, the determination of the applicable legislation is not based on the percentage division of the limit fund, but on the nature and main subject matter of the contract. This principle is based on Article 5, point 2 of Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, which stipulates that: “In the case of a public contract with a mixed subject matter, the contracting authority determines the rules to be applied, in accordance with the main subject matter of the contract.” In this sense, the percentage of the fund may serve as an auxiliary indicator for the analysis, but does not constitute the sole or decisive basis for choosing the applicable legal framework. The analysis must be based on the dominant function of the contract and on the purpose for which it is concluded. OBP remains available to support every institution for the fair and unified assessment of concrete cases, in order to respect the law and transparency standards in procurement.

Sibora

Question: Hello! When in a procedure we have a criterion, the completion of the table for the goods subject to procurement and we are asked for the country of origin of the goods, does the Contracting Authority ask us for the origin of the raw material with which the product is produced or the country where the goods subject to procurement are produced?

Answer: Thank you for your question. In cases where the documentation of a procurement procedure requires the declaration of the country of origin for the goods subject to procurement, the country where these goods are finally produced is meant, and not the country of origin of the raw material used for their production. The origin is determined according to the country where the goods undergo the last significant processing, resulting in the preparation of the final product. Therefore, when completing the relevant tables, please declare the country where the final product, which is the subject of the procurement, was produced.

Forum

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Th.D

Thirrje Per Drejtesi

Edi

Edi

Xhensila

Mikaela

Marsi

Gentian

Adrian

Kristi

Ilir

Martin

Ina

Albion

Era

Eri

Prokuruesi

Sara

Arber

Martina

Kristi

Armand

Sibora

Economic Operator

Andi

Anila

Eva A

Contact Administrator