Gostivar has been drinking bottled water for more than two weeks now. Somebody is procuring it. Somebody is paying for it. And around that somebody a row has developed in which every side has its own figures, while the citizen standing there with a bottle in hand has none.

The opposition SDSM claims the government signed a contract worth around 100,000 euros with the Kozhuvchanka company from Kavadarci - and that it was done by direct negotiation, without a public notice. The contract, they say, states a negotiated procedure without publication of a notice. The company, they point out, is linked to the mayor of Kavadarci.

The government's answer

The government dismissed the accusations as, in the wording of its statement, shameless lies. Their version: yes, the General and Joint Affairs Service ran a negotiated procedure, but it is also a fact that a 1.5-litre bottle costing at least 25 denars in shops is being procured by the government at 12.5 denars.

Half price. That is the argument. And it is a verifiable fact - or at least it looks like one until you ask who is covering the other half.

The answer came from the company itself. Kozhuvchanka announced it had applied to the government services' public call with an offer of 12.5 denars per bottle, and that it is absorbing the difference between the regular retail price and the offered price entirely at its own expense - as a gesture of solidarity. It also guarantees free transport to the Gostivar municipality.

Three versions, one question

So: SDSM says there was no notice. The government says there was a procedure and that Kozhuvchanka won the contract through a tender. The company says it applied to a public call and is donating twelve and a half denars per bottle.

One of these claims does not match the other two, and this is not a matter of nuance - it is a matter of whether there was competition or not. A negotiated procedure without publication of a notice and a public call are not the same thing under any public procurement law.

Not one of the three sides has offered the single thing that would close the argument: the document itself. The contract with its registration number, its date, its stated type of procedure. It exists. It is a public procurement with public money. And until it is published, this remains a three-way contest of press releases.

The company says solidarity matters more than profit. It may well be true. But solidarity is not proven by a statement - it is proven by an invoice. And the invoice, unlike the statement, is the one thing nobody is offering to show.