The next scandal related to the much talked about affair of the “Tigers of Vlora” comes through a tender worth over 1.8 billion ALL. A mechanism envisaged in the terms of reference raises serious questions about how public money will be spent.
The much talked about affair of the “Tigres of Vlora” returns to the center of attention. Despite the many controversies that have accompanied this asset, the high costs and the minimal level of energy generation, the “Tigers” continue to demand millions of euros from the Albanians’ money.
This time, the focus is on the tender “OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THERMAL GENERATION ASSET, VLOR”, with no. reference REF-96099-08-13-2026, announced by KESH sh.a. – Albanian Electric Energy Corporation.
The tender fund limit is ALL 1,855,475,370 without VAT, or about USD 23,026,500 without VAT.
The contract provides for the operation and maintenance of the Vlora thermal plant for a period of two years.
So far we can talk about a contract of considerable value.
But what makes this procedure particularly interesting is not only the amount.
It is the way some of its terms are drafted and, above all, the mechanism provided for the purchase and reimbursement of lubricating oil.
What do the terms of reference provide? The tender documents define a number of obligations for the economic operator that will win the contract. This includes operation services, scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, emergency maintenance, as well as the supply of consumables and spare parts.
KESH sh.a. clearly defines that the consumables do not include HFO and LFO fuel, as these will be provided by KESH itself.
But when it comes to lubricating oil, Lube Oil – LO, the document provides for another mechanism.
The terms of reference state:
“For better organization of maintenance activities, Lubricating Oil (Lube Oil-LO) will be provided directly by the Service Provider, but its relative cost will be reimbursed by the Contracting Authority upon presentation of the invoice.”
And this is where the question marks begin.
The economic operator buys the oil.
Then, KESH sh.a. reimburses the cost on the basis of the invoice.
But where is the competition for this purchase?
Who guarantees that the product is purchased at the lowest possible price?
Who verifies that the billed price is the real market price?
And on what basis can the economic operator carry out a purchase that is then financed by KESH funds, without this purchase being the subject of a special competitive procedure?
These are not rhetorical questions.
These are questions directly related to transparency, competition and administration of public funds.
A mechanism that requires explanation
If KESH will pay for the lubricating oil, then logically the question arises as to how the price is determined.
In a normal procurement procedure, the contracting authority has the opportunity to receive offers, compare prices and choose the most favorable offer according to the defined criteria.
In the present case, according to the terms of reference, the economic operator provides the product and then requests its reimbursement.
So the main question is:
How is it guaranteed that the economic operator has bought at the best market price?
If the answer is that the price is controlled by KESH, then it should be clarified how this control is done.
If the operator has to present alternative offers, it should be made clear where this obligation is foreseen and how it is documented.
If there is no such mechanism, then the question mark becomes even bigger.
Four questions for KESH and the responsible institutions
1. How is it possible that, through a procurement procedure, KESH sh.a. transfer to the economic operator the right to make purchases that are then reimbursed by the contracting authority?
What is the legal basis for such a mechanism and how does it comply with public procurement rules?
If it is about KESH funds, why is this purchase not carried out directly by the contracting authority through a competitive procedure?
2. How can KESH sh.a. pay an invoice which is not the result of a direct procurement procedure developed by the contracting authority itself?
Is this purchase considered part of the scope of the contract?
If so, how was the value determined and the method of its procurement?
If not, what is the legal basis that allows KESH to reimburse it?
3. How is it guaranteed that the value presented by the economic operator is the lowest value in the market?
What mechanism exists to control the price?
How is the principle of free and fair competition guaranteed?
And who is responsible if the product is purchased at a higher price than the real market price?
4. How is it possible that such a mechanism was included in the terms of reference and the procedure was allowed to proceed?
Here the questions are no longer only for KESH.
They also go to the institutions that have responsibility in the field of public procurement.
What about APP?
The Public Procurement Agency, as the institution responsible for the supervision and development of the public procurement system, must clarify whether such a mechanism is in accordance with the legislation and the basic principles of public procurement.
How is this mechanism evaluated?
Has the refund method been checked?
Has the risk that such a procedure can create for the use of public funds been assessed?
And if so, what was the outcome?
What about KPP?
Even the Public Procurement Commission should clarify whether this procedure has been or will be the subject of review due to its conditions.
A limit fund of 1.855 billion ALL without VAT is not an amount that can be handled with formality.
Any mechanism affecting the way these funds are spent must be clear, justified and controllable.
Has it been used before?
The matter becomes even more serious if it is verified that a similar mechanism was previously used by KESH sh.a. during the last two years.
If this practice has existed, then verification is relatively simple.
Can be checked:
previous contracts;
invoices presented;
purchase prices;
documentation of economic operators;
method of reimbursement;
market prices at the time of purchase;
and any other documents related to these expenses.
If it turns out from these documents that the same mechanism has been used repeatedly, then we have an issue that deserves a full institutional control.
And the question about SPAK remains straightforward
SPAK, why are you silent?
If there are documents and data that can verify the use of this mechanism in the past, then the competent bodies need nothing more than to do their job.
Get the documents.
To check the invoices.
Compare prices.
To verify the procedures.
And determine whether or not there is a violation.
No one is being asked to be found guilty without investigation.
Investigation and transparency are being demanded.
If any action is carried out in accordance with the law, then the institutions must say it clearly and substantiate it with documents.
If there is violation, abuse or favoritism, then those responsible must face the legal consequences.
Why is this issue important?
Because it is about a contract worth about 23 million dollars without VAT.
It is about an asset that for years has been associated with debates on costs and efficiency.
And it is about funds that ultimately come from Albanian taxpayers’ money.
In such a situation, any procedure should be as transparent as possible.
Any expenditure must be justified.
Any price must be verifiable.
And any mechanism that creates room for abuse should be examined before it becomes a consolidated practice.
We ask for reflection and action
KESH sh.a., APP and KPP must provide answers.
Not a formal answer, but a concrete answer on the legal basis and the way this mechanism works.
If everything is legal, let the legal basis be made public.
If there are price controls, let them know what they are.
If the economic operator must provide different offers before the purchase, let it be clarified where and how this obligation is determined.
But if an economic operator can buy a product and then simply submit the invoice for reimbursement from KESH, then the question remains:
Where is the competition?
And above all:
Who guarantees that public money is being spent at the best price and in the most transparent way possible?
The responsible institutions must act while there is still time.
Because an unclear mechanism in a contract worth over ALL 1.8 billion should not go unchallenged.
Transparency is needed.
Control is needed.
And if there are indications of abuse of public funds, an investigation is also needed.
SPAK only needs to do its job: verify the documents, follow the money and bring out those responsible, if they exist. Because in the end, this story is not just about the “Tigers of Vlora”. It is about the way Albanians’ money is spent.
