The Municipality of Drenas has once again selected the company “LetaMed” as the winner of a 99,000-euro tender for supplying dental equipment to its main medical center, despite earlier findings of non-compliance with specifications by the Procurement Review Body (PRB) which had called for a re-evaluation of the bids.
After the recent announcement, rival bidders raised formal complaints with the PRB, accusing the tender process of interference and favoritism. Specifically, the company “Promedical” argued that “LetaMed” was awarded the contract even though its bid did not meet the official technical requirements. Promedical also pointed out that the winning offer was substantially above the usual market price, stating that a dental chair included in the contract was priced at 7,800 euros, while similar equipment typically costs between 2,200 and 3,200 euros. They referenced another municipality, Suhareka, where a similar chair was contracted for 3,500 euros.
In addition to the pricing concerns, Promedical argued that the evaluation criteria had not been applied equally among the companies. The complaint highlighted that Promedical had been disqualified for having an expired and non-notarized CE certificate, while LetaMed, which allegedly presented the same issue, was still marked as compliant. Promedical also accused a member of the evaluation commission of having ties to the winning company. Adnan Bala, the owner of Promedical, described direct meetings with procurement officials but claimed that procedural obstacles were put in place to exclude his company.
LetaMed denied all accusations, insisting the process was proper and suggesting that Promedical was attempting to undermine the proceedings. LetaMed’s representatives said that any claims of forgery or document issues had already been addressed both to municipal authorities and the manufacturers involved in the bidding process.
The director of the Drenas Health Center, Ismet Bogiqi, also refuted claims of interference, emphasizing that only official communication channels were used for verifying company documents. He explained that, while there was some confusion regarding the use of email communications, all actions were coordinated with the commission. The municipality, when asked about the rationale behind awarding the same winner following the PRB’s instruction to re-evaluate the bids, reiterated its position that all operators are treated equally. The municipality stated it refers any suspected document falsification to the PRB for investigation and awaits the official outcome before drawing conclusions.
Read More
