Legislation is in line with standards when it comes to clear and transparent procedure through which the funding for services is distributed among providers. The control procedure is foreseen in the Law on Public Procurement and the Ordinance on the Close Regulation of the Public Procurement Procedure Article 161 of the Law on Public Procurement provides that members of the Republic Commission may conduct control of the execution of the Republic Commission’s decision.
Unfortunately, disabling environment has been identified when it comes to lead criterion for selection of service providers. According to Articles 84 and 85 of Law on Public Procurement price is not always the main criterion for the selection of service providers, but also the factors of service quality and financial stability of providers are considered. Same articles provide that the contracting authority is obliged to determine the same criterion and elements of the criteria for awarding the contract in the invitation to tender and in the tender documents. The criterion for evaluating the bid, in addition to the lowest price, is the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender (which depends on a number of other issues).
The Rulebook on the Close Regulation of the Public Procurement Procedure sets out the obligation of the Public Procurement Commission to prepare a reasoned proposal for a decision in accordance with the Report on the Expert Evaluation of the Bid.
There are clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interests which is in line with standards. The Law on Public Procurement contains provisions on the prevention of conflicts of interest, as well as certain mechanisms aimed at ensuring transparency and legality of this procedure.
0 – 20 Fully disabling environment20 – 40 Disabling environment
40 – 60 Partially enabling environment60 – 80 Enabling environment
80 – 100 Fully enabling environment
Same goes for the right to appeal against competition results. The Law on public procurement, provides for the possibility of submitting a request for protection of rights to the Republic Commission, if the authorized person who has a legal interest in awarding the contract considers that he has suffered or could suffer damage due to the actions of the contracting authority which is contrary to the provisions of the Law on Public Procurement. It also provides for the possibility of initiating an administrative dispute against the decision or in case of failure to act on the request for protection of rights by the Republic Commission.
Regarding the level of services contracted to CSOs, practice is partially harmonized with standards. 19 CSOs from MM Survey stated they applied for contracts – 18 of them are licensed for social service providing and 1 applied for educational services for LSG representatives. There is no unique record of CSOs that reported receiving contracts per different policy field. None of the surveyed/ interviewed CSOs reported receiving other types of contracts).
Data indicates enabling environment when it comes to competitions are considered fair and conflicts of interest are avoided. 9 out of 52 CSOs agreed that the allocation of state contracts is transparent and fair. Anti-Corruption Agency exercises control over the disposal of public resources, reveals irregularities committed by individuals and / or groups, regardless of their status, educates representatives of the public sector and other target groups, including the general public, on issues relevant to anti-corruption activities; provides mechanisms to establish and enhance integrity within the institutional and regulatory framework. The Agency regularly publishes the Opinions on conflict of interest of public officials, but none of published opinions refers to conflict of interest in case of calls/contracts for service providers. There are no available data on cases of conflict of interest reported in anticorruption reports by the state/ CSOs or in media by journalists.
State officials have partial capacity to organize the procedures. Answering to FoI requests, MCI stated that only 1 official has undergone training for state contracting, MYS confirmed that its officials attended mentioned trainings, but didn’t state their number; 2 MTT’s officials have undergone relevant training. 10 CSOs agreed that state officials have the sufficient capacity (e.g. knowledge; training) to implement procedures for contracting of services.