Forum
Information space for applying for OBP procedures

Thank you for your question,

Pursuant to Law No. 162/2020, dated 23.12.2020, “On Public Procurement”, as amended, and Council of Ministers Decision (CMD) No. 285, dated 19.05.2021, as amended, the total value of contracts concluded under a Framework Agreement is not necessarily required to be equal either to the value offered by the Economic Operator or to the estimated fund/maximum estimated value of the procurement procedure.
According to Article 34 of the Public Procurement Law and Article 62, paragraph 4, of CMD No. 285, the estimated value of a Framework Agreement includes the calculated total value of all contracts expected to be awarded during its duration. This value constitutes the maximum estimated limit for the contracts that may be concluded, but does not create an obligation for the contracting authority to use the entire amount. In fact, CMD No. 285 expressly provides that the contracting authority/entity is not obliged to procure a specific quantity of the goods, services, or works covered by the Framework Agreement.

Consequently, the total value of the mini-contracts is determined based on the specific needs of the contracting authority and within the limits and conditions established in the Framework Agreement. It is therefore not mandatory for the final total value to be equal to either the estimated fund or the value offered.

Thank you for your question,

Where the contracting authority has completed the evaluation of the bids and the Economic Operator has been disqualified, an appeal against the evaluation decision may be submitted after the publication of the contract award notice, as the statutory appeal period starts from that point.
According to Article 97, paragraph 2, of CMD No. 285, dated 19.05.2021, as amended, Economic Operators may submit an appeal to the contracting authority/entity within 10 days of the publication of the contract award notice in the case of procedures above the high monetary threshold, and within 7 days in the case of procedures below the high monetary threshold. Therefore, the fact that an Economic Operator has been disqualified during the evaluation stage does not result in the loss of the right to appeal; this right may be exercised within the above-mentioned deadlines, calculated from the publication of the contract award notice.

Following the review, the contracting authority may fully accept, partially accept, or reject the appeal. Against the decision of the contracting authority, the interested Economic Operator may continue the appeal before the Public Procurement Commission, in accordance with the deadlines established by the Public Procurement Law.

Thank you for your question,

Yes, reliance on the capacities of other entities, including foreign entities (e.g., from Kosovo, North Macedonia, or other countries), is permitted under public procurement legislation, provided that the conditions set out in Law No. 162/2020 "On Public Procurement", as amended, as well as the relevant secondary legislation, are respected.

An economic operator has the right to rely on the capacities of:

• financial/economic and/or
• technical/professional

of other entities, regardless of the nature of its legal relationship with them and regardless of their nationality.

The entity on whose capacities the operator relies must:

• Not be in exclusion conditions as defined by law (criminal convictions, unpaid tax obligations, etc.)
• Not be a bidder in the same procurement procedure
• Not support more than one bidder in the same procedure (to avoid conflicts of interest and distortion of competition)
• The reliance may be limited (e.g., up to a certain percentage, such as 50% of the criterion), if provided for in the Standard Tender Documents (STD)
• Meet the relevant criteria for which it provides support (financial or technical), in accordance with the requirements of the STD
• Provide a clear and verifiable commitment (declaration or cooperation agreement), ensuring that the capacities will actually be available during contract execution
• In cases of reliance on technical/professional capacities, the supporting entity is usually required to participate directly in the execution of the contract

(Example: for pharmaceuticals, there are additional, more specific criteria, requirements, and limitations arising from the legislation in force in the Republic of Albania regarding the import, distribution, and trade of medicinal products and medical devices; these requirements must be genuinely fulfilled by the supporting entity, including possession of relevant licenses, authorizations, GDP standards, as well as the necessary infrastructure (e.g., headquarters/warehouse in Albania), in order to ensure the practical implementation of the contract and not merely formal compliance.)

In these procedures, due to the sensitivity of the sector, the following may be required:

• fulfillment of authorization/licensing criteria (e.g., authorization for trading medicinal products, registration with the National Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, etc.)
• guarantees for the supply chain and traceability
• compliance with specific technical and quality standards

In such cases, reliance cannot be used to circumvent obligations that the law requires the bidder itself to fulfill, especially when related to legal authorizations for carrying out the activity.

The Standard Tender Documents (STD) may restrict or exclude reliance in cases where:

• licenses/authorizations are required to be in the name of the bidder itself
• the nature of the contract requires direct and indivisible responsibility (e.g., distribution of medicines)
• capacities are required that are not realistically transferable (e.g., specific legal authorizations)
• for reasons of safety, quality, or public health, the contracting authority justifies the restriction in the STD

Reliance on the capacities of foreign entities is permitted and common in procedures above the high monetary threshold, including framework agreements; however:

• it must be real and verifiable
• it must not be used to circumvent essential legal requirements
• and it is subject to justified limitations in the STD, especially in sensitive sectors such as healthcare

Thank you for your question,

In the case of complaints about the evaluation of bids by the KVO, the appeal period starts from the moment of publication in the system of the preliminary winner notification. However, according to the general rules for calculating procedural deadlines, the day of publication is not included in the calculation, but the counting of days starts from the following day. In the given example, if the preliminary winner notification was published on 05.03.2026 and the appeal period is 7 days, the counting starts from 06.03.2026 and the deadline for submitting the appeal is 12.03.2026.

Thank you for your question,

As we understand, the issue raised relates to the situation where, after the approval of the fund for the implementation of a 12-month framework agreement, a normative change (an increase in the minimum wage) intervenes, directly affecting the cost of its execution and rendering the approved fund insufficient.

From a legal analysis perspective, the following elements should be considered:

1. On the obligation to ensure a realistic calculation of the limit fund

Pursuant to Law No. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended, and the Public Procurement Rules, as amended, the limit fund must:

• be calculated accurately and in a reasoned manner;
• be based on real market analysis;
• reflect the current economic conditions at the moment of initiating the procedure.

If, at the moment of announcing the procedure, the contracting authority has objective knowledge that the approved fund does not realistically cover the 12-month period, then the fund must be recalculated prior to initiating the procedure.

Announcing a procedure with a fund that is known in advance to be insufficient is contrary to the principles of:

• proper planning;
• proportionality;
• efficient use of public funds.

2. On the legal nature of the framework agreement

Although a framework agreement is not an executive contract in itself, it:

• defines the maximum expected value;
• represents a potential financial commitment;
• creates legitimate expectations for economic operators.

Consequently, even in the case of a framework agreement, the announced value must be supported by real budgetary coverage.

Financial discipline does not allow the undertaking of public commitments on funds that are known to be insufficient.

3. On the possibility of subsequent reallocation

Reallocation of funds is permissible; however, it must be carried out prior to initiating the procedure, and the limit fund must be updated before the publication of the contract notice.

It is not a legally sustainable practice to initiate a procedure with insufficient funds on the assumption that additional funds will be allocated later.

4. Lawful alternatives

In the absence of the full fund for 12 months, the contracting authority may:

• recalculate and secure reallocation of funds prior to initiating the procedure; or
• conduct a procedure for a period that is realistically financially covered, avoiding artificial splitting of the need.

The contracting authority should not initiate a 12-month framework agreement when, at the moment of announcement, it has objective knowledge of the lack of financial coverage for its full value.

The legally sound solution is to recalculate the fund according to the new economic conditions and secure prior financial coverage before initiating the procedure.

Yes. The impact of centralized procurement on the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is an element that is taken into consideration during the drafting of procedures by OBP.
In practice, several mechanisms are applied in order not to restrict SME participation:

• Division into lots, whenever the nature of the subject matter allows it, in order to avoid concentrating the entire value in a single contract.
• Functional and proportionate technical specifications, which do not create unnecessary entry barriers.
• Balanced qualification criteria, in line with the principle of proportionality, avoiding excessive financial or technical requirements.
• Framework agreements with multiple economic operators, where possible, in order to increase access opportunities.

The centralization of procurement aims at:

• standardization and efficiency,
• cost reduction for the public budget,
• increased transparency.

However, it does not aim to exclude small operators. On the contrary, the proper structuring of the procedure seeks to create a more organized and competitive market.

In practical analysis, SME participation is present in a number of centralized procedures, which shows that centralization is not synonymous with exclusion, but requires careful procedural balancing.

The appeal deadline starts immediately after the publication of the Preliminary Notice of the Winner.

Regarding the subject of the appeal at this stage:

• Claims that have already been exhausted and addressed in the first stage of the appeal cannot be raised again;
• Claims may relate only to elements arising from the re-evaluation and the new decision of the contracting authority.

The direct publication of the Final Notice of the Winner would not be procedurally correct, as it would infringe the right to appeal against the new result created by the re-evaluation.

Therefore:

1. Re-evaluation following the decision of the PPC
2. Publication of the Preliminary Notice of the Winner
3. Opening of the appeal deadline

Thank you for your question!

In this specific case, given that the outcome of the procedure has changed as a result of the PPC decision and during the re-evaluation process a new conclusion has been reached regarding the qualification/disqualification of the operators, the contracting authority must proceed with:

Publication of the Preliminary Notice of the Winner, based on the new evaluation result.

The reason is clear: re-evaluation constitutes a new decision-making phase regarding the results of the procedure; therefore, the procedural cycle of preliminary notification and the right to appeal must restart.

The appeal deadline starts immediately after the publication of the Preliminary Notice of the Winner.

Regarding the subject of the appeal at this stage:

• Claims that have already been exhausted and addressed in the first stage of the appeal cannot be raised again;
• Claims may relate only to elements arising from the re-evaluation and the new decision of the contracting authority.

The direct publication of the Final Notice of the Winner would not be procedurally correct, as it would infringe the right to appeal against the new result created by the re-evaluation.

Therefore:

1. Re-evaluation following the decision of the PPC
2. Publication of the Preliminary Notice of the Winner
3. Opening of the appeal deadline
4. Afterwards, in the absence of an appeal or after its exhaustion, publication of the Final Notice of the Winner

This preserves procedural coherence and guarantees the effective right to appeal.

Within CPO operations, every procedure is documented and auditable.

To date, there have been no proven cases of severe, 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 severe or intentional violations.

Every identified case is handled according to internal procedures and in compliance with the applicable legislation.

If such a violation were to be found, measures would be taken without hesitation and in accordance with the law.

CPO operates on the principle of responsibility and transparency, based not on perceptions but on proven facts.

The division of responsibilities is established in Law no. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement” as amended, and in relevant acts regulating CPO’s operation as a central purchasing body.

This division is ensured through a clear functional structure:

Contracting / Beneficiary Authorities:

• define the specific need,
• draft technical specifications,
• justify the budget limit,
• monitor contract execution and make payments.

CPO:

• structures and manages the procurement procedure,
• prepares standard tender documents (procedural and legal parts),
• ensures legality, transparency, and competition during the procedure,
• selects the economic operator according to legal rules.

To avoid overlap:

• each procedure is accompanied by clear documentation of roles and responsibilities;
• communication and official correspondence establish responsibility for every technical or economic element;
• CPO’s legal control is limited to compliance with the law, not replacing the beneficiary authority in its responsibilities.

Thus, responsibilities are clearly separated:

Beneficiary Authority defines "what" and oversees implementation;

CPO ensures "how" the procedure is carried out, in accordance with the law.

When a beneficiary authority has specific needs 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 justifies them technically.

The specifications are submitted to CPO for technical and legal review, aiming to:

• verify compliance with the law,
• avoid restricting competition,
• ensure the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination.

After this review and, if necessary, the relevant corrections, the procurement procedure is published.

Therefore, flexibility exists but is exercised within the legal framework and professional control, so that specific needs do not become a limitation to competition or a legal risk for the procedure.

Beneficiary authorities’ involvement is essential in the preliminary stage of the procedure.

Specifically:

Contracting / Beneficiary Authorities:

• draft technical specifications,
• calculate and justify the budget limit,
• and refer to the CPO catalog for centralized goods and services when published and prepared.

Procurement unit at CPO:

• prepares the rest of the Standard Tender Documents (DST),
• sets qualification criteria (in accordance with the law),
• includes contractual terms and procedural structure,
• and ensures the legal compliance of the documentation.

Thus, the role division is clear:

Beneficiary Authority defines the technical need and economic basis. CPO structures and manages the procedural documentation in accordance with the law.

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

Technical specifications are drafted 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, to identify technological alternatives and economic operators active in the relevant field.

CPO operates with an open and documented public consultation, inviting all interested economic operators to provide comments on draft technical specifications.

Drafting functional and performance-based specifications, avoiding references to specific brands, models, or manufacturers (except legally justified cases with the formulation "or equivalent").

Legal and technical verification before announcing the procedure, to ensure that requirements are proportional and directly related to the procurement object.

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

The goal is that the specifications:

• do not favor a particular operator or brand,
• are technically accurate,
• and create conditions for real and fair competition.

This ensures respect for the principle of non-discrimination and the legality of the procedure.

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

In these cases, the following mechanisms are usually used:

• Functional technical specifications, not tied to a specific brand or model, but based on performance and measurable parameters.
• Framework agreements with a limited term, to avoid technological “freezing” for long periods.
• Periodic updates of standardization catalogs when significant technological or price changes are observed in the market.
• Division into lots to allow participation of alternative technologies.
• In specific cases, the use of competitive dialogue or more dynamic procurement forms when the object requires technological adaptation.

The goal is to:

• ensure real competition,
• avoid favoring outdated technologies,
• and ensure that institutions receive current solutions aligned with market developments.

Thus, centralized procurement does not mean rigidity; rather, it requires continuous market monitoring and more flexible procedural tools.

The budget limit is not determined formally or rigidly, but based on an updated market analysis.

Generally, 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 indexes and economic factors (currency, transport costs, imports, etc.);
• Updating catalogs or price references when a sustained market change is observed.

The goal is for the budget limit to be:

• realistic in relation to the market,
• sufficient to ensure competition,
• and at the same time protective of public funds.

In conditions of economic fluctuations, market analysis and its documentation are essential to avoid failed procedures or unjustified overestimation.

According to Law no. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended:

Article 124 stipulates that, after completion of the procedure and signing of the contract:

• monitoring contract implementation,
• tracking delivery/performance of service,
• quality control and compliance with technical specifications,
• and processing payments,

are the responsibility of the Beneficiary/Contracting Authority, which is a party to the contract.

Article 125, point 1 requires reporting to the Public Procurement Agency on contract implementation.

CPO’s role ends at the procedure development and selection of the economic operator stage, according to the legal framework in force.

Meanwhile, systematic monitoring and supervision of reporting are exercised by the PPA in accordance with its legal competencies.

Thus, the division of responsibilities is clear:

• CPO develops the procedure;
• The beneficiary authority implements and monitors the contract;
• PPA oversees reporting and the system at the national level.

A clarification necessary for a healthy institutional debate.

The decisions of the Public Procurement Commission (PPA) play a crucial 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; PPA decisions are administrative acts that can be challenged and reviewed, including by administrative courts.

Therefore:

• The overturning or modification of an evaluation by PPA cannot and should not automatically be interpreted as a legal violation by the Procurement Unit or Beneficiary Authority staff;
• much less as a basis for personal measures against commission members.

PPA:

• corrects procedures,
• interprets rules,
• but does not replace the professional and legal responsibility of contracting authorities.

PPA decisions are not punitive orders and do not automatically generate personal responsibility for Procurement Unit or Beneficiary Authority members.

If this were the case, then every overturned decision would require:

• investigation,
• sanction,
• individual punishment.

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

PPA:

• controls the procedure,
• does not judge individuals,
• does not punish commissions.

Measures against Procurement Unit or Beneficiary Authority members are taken only when a severe, intentional, or repeated violation is proven, not because an administrative evaluation was interpreted differently by another administrative body.

In simple terms:

• Overturning a decision ≠ legal violation
• Different interpretation ≠ personal fault
• Procedure correction ≠ human punishment

Therefore, the idea that every overturned decision should be accompanied by “measures” against commissions is:

• either a misunderstanding of the public procurement system,
• or an attempt at institutional pressure on professionals.

At the Centralized Procurement Operator, contrary to forum narratives:

• procedures are reviewed,
• documents are improved,
• the law is respected.

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

When there are multiple bidders, it is not true that the lowest price always wins.

The law clearly states that in many procedures the principle of the economically most advantageous offer is applied, where price is only one element. Scoring may result in a winner who does not necessarily have the lowest price but has higher technical capacity, better meets social or environmental criteria, etc. Several components are evaluated in this type of procurement process.

Additionally, the lowest offer may not win if:

• legal or financial documents are missing;
• bid security is missing;
• manufacturer authorization is missing;
• technical specifications are not met;
• quality and safety requirements are not fulfilled, especially in healthcare.

A low price without proper documentation and guarantees is not a valid offer.

In summary, the evaluation criteria in a procurement procedure fall into three main pillars:

1. Legal and formal – registration, declaration forms, bid security, absence of conflicts of interest, etc.;
2. Technical – compliance with specifications, manufacturer authorizations, quality certifications, compatibility, similar contracts, etc.;
3. Economic – price, cost–quality ratio, product/service lifespan and efficiency, balance sheets, annual turnover, etc.

Only offers that pass all these stages compete for winning.

Regarding savings, CPO manages to save money for the state budget through concrete mechanisms:

• centralization of procurement, which increases volumes and reduces prices;
• increased competition where the market allows;
• standardization of technical specifications via catalogs, avoiding favoritism and improvisation;
• full transparency and automatic notifications for economic operators for every tender published, increasing participation.

The result is:

• offers below the budget limit in most procedures, especially for public works;
• prices within legal ceilings for regulated products;
• long-term cost reduction 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 balances legality, quality, and financial efficiency. This is the model followed by CPO.

Hello,

Thank you for your questions; they are very important and directly relate to how public procurement works in practice.

First, a procurement procedure may have only one bidder, and this is completely legally valid.

The Public Procurement Law, like EU practices, does not require a minimum number of bidders greater than one, but it does require that there be at least one bidder and that the procedure is:

• publicly announced,
• open to everyone,
• with objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

Reasons why there may be only one bidder are often objective and market-related, such as:

• limited market for specific products (medicines, medical oxygen, diagnostic kits, medical device maintenance, laundry services, catering services);
• manufacturer authorizations or exclusive patents;
• regulated products under a Council of Ministers decision, where only one operator is authorized for hospital use;
• products compatible only with existing systems, etc.

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

Hello Xhensila,

Thank you for your question.

In the case of simple purchase procedures, when the budget limit set by the Commission is 80,000 lek excluding VAT, this amount represents the maximum allowed value that can be accepted as a valid offer.

The Commission can declare as winner an offer that is:

• equal to the budget limit (i.e., 80,000 lek), or
• lower than the budget limit (e.g., 75,000 lek), if it meets the other legal and technical criteria.

What is not allowed is declaring as winner an offer exceeding the budget limit, as this would surpass the approved contract ceiling and conflict with current legislation.

Therefore, in your example, an offer of 80,000 lek is fully compliant with the budget limit and can be declared the winner if it meets the other tender criteria.

Thank you for your interest, and we remain available for further clarifications.

Thank you for your question.

Based on point b) of Article 76 of CMD No. 285, dated 19.05.2021, "On the approval of public procurement rules", as amended, the budget limit calculation can be made using the average of prices obtained from the market study. Although the normative act does not specify a mandatory mathematical formula (e.g., A+B+C/3), it is important that the calculation method is documented, transparent, and justified in the market study report.

CPO recommends that for calculating the average price:

• at least 3 real offers from the market are considered;
• extremely low or high offers are excluded when there are large deviations;
• an arithmetic average of valid prices is applied; if an alternative formula like A+B+C/3 is used, it must be accompanied by proper justification.

If a table or specific format is used, it should reflect the nature of the goods or services and ensure reliability and objectivity in determining the market value.

Thank you for your interest, and we remain available for further clarifications.

Hello,

First, thank you for using the catalog prepared and approved by the Centralized Procurement Operator, published not only on the Operator’s official page but also on the Public Procurement Agency’s official page for calculating the budget limit. These catalogs provide consolidated prices based on market studies and analyses, increasing transparency, objectivity, and harmonization of inter-institutional practices.

Second, Article 11 of CMD No. 285, dated 19.05.2021 “On the approval of public procurement rules”, as amended, provides that contracting authorities may use simplified procedures, such as purchases under 100,000 lek, for goods and services whose total annual value does not exceed 100,000 lek.

For this type of procedure, contracting authorities can carry out purchases through a simplified process that includes requesting offers and selecting based on the lowest valid price. Using CPO catalog prices in this case only serves to determine the budget limit and does not affect the criterion for selecting the winning offer.

In conclusion, for purchases under 100,000 lek and small-value procedures, the winning offer is selected based on the lowest price.
We wish you success!

Thank you for your question.

Law no. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended, does not automatically prevent an economic operator (EO) who 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 exactly the principle you raised if foreseen by the CA.

How is this checked in practice?

During the evaluation procedure, the contracting authority:

1. Sets clear qualification criteria, such as:
   • Available technical staff and workers;
   • Equipment and logistical resources;
   • Previous experience;
   • Declaration of contracts in progress.
2. Requests documentation to prove these capacities, including information about other ongoing contracts that may affect the fulfillment of the new contract.
3. If an EO fails to demonstrate that it has sufficient resources to handle 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 special qualification criteria, including the ability to fulfill the contract.
   • Article 25 of Council of Ministers Decision no. 285, dated 19.5.2021, as amended – Defines the types of required capacities and the method of their evaluation. Direct prohibition applies to public works contracts regarding the criterion of the technical manager of the site according to point 2.1 of Instruction no. 2, dated 15.05.2018 "On the implementation of construction works," which specifies that for works estimated over 30 million ALL, the technical manager must be resident, full-time on-site, and hold a degree in civil engineering.

Conclusion:

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

Dear user, thank you for your interest.

Evaluation by points of offers is done by the contracting institution based on Law no. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, as amended, CMD 285/2021 as amended, and the tender documents. This evaluation is part of the “economically most advantageous offer based on cost” procedure, 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 a simplified way:

1. Evaluation criteria are defined 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 carries;
   • And how the evaluation will be conducted (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 solution
   • Commitment to quality or environmental standards (like ISO, EMAS, etc.)
2. Each offer receives points for each criterion
   The evaluation committee reviews the offers 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 scored proportionally according to a defined formula.
     For example, if the price carries 60 points and the lowest offer is 100 ALL, it receives 60 points. An offer of 120 ALL may receive 50 points, according to the formula.
   • For qualitative criteria (technical description, experience, etc.), evaluation is done on a scale from 0 to the maximum points, depending on the quality of the information provided.
3. Total points for each offer are calculated
   The points each operator receives for each criterion are summed to create the total points of the offer. The winner is the operator with the highest total points, provided all legal and technical requirements are met.

Legal basis for this process:

• Article 87 of Law no. 162/2020, as amended – Addresses the way offers are evaluated and ranked based on published criteria and point evaluation.
• Article 88 of the same law – Defines what the economically most advantageous offer is and that it may be based on price, cost, or quality.
• Article 45 of CMD no. 285, dated 19.05.2021, “On the approval of the public procurement regulation”, as amended – Defines the method of calculating points and the use of the lowest cost, when compared on more than price alone.

Conclusion:

Point evaluation is a transparent and legally regulated method to select the offer that provides the best quality–cost ratio, not just the lowest offer. This method ensures that the contract goes to an operator who, besides 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 current legislation, we are available. Thank you!

Thank you for your interest and question. The Central Purchasing Operator ensures transparency and efficiency in procurement processes through a set of mechanisms implemented at every stage of the procedure.

Transparency is ensured through:

• Real-time publication of every procedure on CPO’s official website and in the electronic procurement system;
• Automatic notification to registered economic operators according to their categories of interest;
• Availability of standard documentation and unified catalogs for all parties, mostly free of charge;
• Equal access to information for all market operators.

Efficiency is achieved through:

• Maintaining unified and standardized technical specifications, which reduces preparation time and costs;
• Pooling the needs of contracting authorities in centralized contracts, ensuring economies of scale;
• Continuous market monitoring to ensure fair competition and optimal prices;
• Using the Alb-Zone system for technical drafting and professional referencing of requirements.

These mechanisms build a sustainable, transparent, and reliable process for all participating actors.

The services offered by CPO on the official website are designed precisely to facilitate access and transparency for economic operators.

Most importantly, there is automatic notification for every procurement procedure published by CPO, which is sent to operators registered as interested in certain procurement categories. This service is free and helps inform EOs immediately without the need for advanced searches.

Also, every new procedure published by CPO is posted immediately on the official website, without restrictions or access barriers for users. This ensures equal information access for all market participants.

CPO does not apply any fees for economic operators or contracting authorities to access these services. For contracting authorities, free access is also provided to unified and standardized catalogs, as well as to the Alb-Zone system, which supports drafting and development of technical documentation and standard specifications for procurement procedures.

Additionally, we are developing new services dedicated to economic operators, which will further improve interaction with the system and continuously increase transparency.

Thank you for your question.

Hello, to see the full list of procurement objects covered by the Central Purchasing Operator, please refer to our official website www.CPO.al.

This list is based on Council of Ministers Decision no. 531, dated 7.9.2023, which has undergone amendments and has been expanded with new objects, now reflected on our website. However, according to point 12 of this CMD, CPO is authorized to carry out any type of procurement procedure for goods, services, or works requested by contracting authorities, even if the objects are not explicitly listed, as long as the institution requests assistance and does not have sufficient technical capacity to carry out the procedure itself.

For any specific case, contact us and we are ready to verify whether the object in question is covered by CPO or can be handled through a dedicated procedure.

Hello Ina, and thank you for your question! Yes, it is possible to procure maintenance services for multiple IT systems in a single procedure, but this depends on several important criteria that must be respected to ensure legality and competition:

1. The systems must have a functional/logical connection or be part of a common structure: For example, if they are systems operating within the same institution, share common infrastructure, or require continuous interaction, and combining them is justified.
2. The technical specification must be clear for each system: This avoids ambiguity and helps economic operators understand exactly what is expected from them for each component.
3. It should not exclude competition: If combining multiple systems would prevent participation of small or specialized operators for just one system, then splitting into lots is recommended.
   • You can use a single procedure with separate lots for each system, giving operators the possibility to apply for one or more lots.
   • Or you can apply a consortium of economic operators, if 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 chosen structure of the procedure.

Hello, thank you for your question!

Yes, we can certainly provide consultancy. CPO has been trained by national and international organizations on the use of social and environmental criteria in procurement, and we are currently in the process of developing a practical technical guide for broader use.

Social and environmental criteria are part of our strategic commitments to sustainable and inclusive procurement. We have already applied them in several procurement categories where you can access them easily in the system.

Hello Era, and thank you for your very relevant question!

Yes, practically, using framework agreements for repeated and predictable procurements is one of the most effective ways to save time, human resources, and increase transparency.

In CPO's 2025–2027 Strategy, the expansion of framework agreements is planned, especially in categories where:

• 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 valid. 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 get the best offer at the moment.

We are working to make these agreements even more accessible to all contracting authorities, through standardized catalogs and the new e-AlbZone platform.

Hello Eri, thank you for your very relevant question!

Yes, part of CPO's 2025–2027 Strategy is precisely the development of mechanisms to monitor competition in public procurements, 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 managing catalogs and online orders, but also as a tool for market monitoring. This platform will help us analyze:

• how many operators participate in procedures,
• where there is real competition and where it is lacking,
• how prices evolve for repeated goods and services.

The goal is to make the process simpler, fairer, and measurable, both for us as a central body and for the institutions that entrust us with procurements.

e-AlbZone will be a monitoring and dynamic platform that gives concrete meaning to our strategy vision: “smart purchasing for better public service.”

Hello 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 legislation in the field of defense and security, the determination of the applicable legislation is not based on the percentage of the budget limit, but on the main nature and purpose of the contract.

This principle is supported by Article 5, point 2 of Law no. 162/2020 “On Public Procurement”, which states:

So:

• The percentage of the budget can serve as a helpful indicator for analysis, but it is not the sole or decisive basis for choosing the applicable legal framework.
• The analysis should be based on the dominant function of the contract and its intended purpose.

CPO’s Role: CPO remains available to support any institution in the fair and unified assessment of specific cases, in order to respect the law and standards of transparency in procurement.

Hello,

No. Only economic operators who have been selected and have signed the framework agreement can participate in a mini-competition. No other entity can be invited or submit an offer.

This is a standard practice in public procurements using framework agreements, to guarantee:

• respect for the selection criteria of operators;
• transparency and real competition among qualified participants;
• procedure efficiency and faster decision-making.

CPO is available for any further clarification on how mini-competitions work and for assistance in their practical implementation.

Hello,

No. Once the contract notice has been published and the tender documents are released, the technical description cannot be changed, except through an official clarification that does not compromise fairness in the competition or alter the subject of the procurement. Any significant change would require re-announcing the procedure.

Hello,

Yes, foreign economic operators can participate in public procurement procedures in Albania, as long as they meet the criteria set in the tender documents. Instead of the Albanian NUIS, they submit a document identifying their registration of activity in their country of origin.

No. In small-value procedures, qualification criteria must be proportional to the nature and value of the contract. Unnecessary or unreasonable requirements that limit competition are unacceptable and violate public procurement principles.

Samples may be requested by the contracting authority when the nature of the goods justifies such a request for more accurate quality assessment. This request must be clearly specified in the tender documents and applied equally to all economic operators.

Thank you for the question. When procurement documentation requests declaration of the place of origin for the procured goods, it refers to the place where these goods are finally produced, not the origin of the raw materials used in production.
The origin is determined according to the place where the good undergoes the final substantial processing, resulting in the preparation of the finished product. Therefore, when filling in the relevant tables, please declare the place where the final product, subject of procurement, was produced.

Hello, on our website there is the section "Register as EO", where you must fill in your details and select one of the procurement fields you are interested in.

Hello, only persons who have access to the AlbZone platform are employees of Contracting Authorities, as they are the users of this platform.

Hello, CPO offers this service for a fee of 2.5% of the requested fund value for procedures up to 200,000,000 lek without VAT, and 5,000,000 lek for any procedure with a value above 200,000,000 lek without VAT.

Hello, according to fees approved by the Council of Ministers, CPO offers consultancy service for a fee of 7,000 lek/hour.