The government has adopted the bill amending the Law on Public Procurement. Among its provisions is one that goes straight at the oldest ailment of Macedonian tendering: institutions will no longer automatically pick the lowest price.

The criterion of "best value for money" becomes mandatory when selecting the most favourable bid. That means the assessment must take in the value, the quality and the long-term justification of a bid - not just the figure at the bottom of the calculation.

Why this was a problem in the first place

The rule "the lowest price wins" sounds like protection against corruption. In practice it is a mechanism that produces two things: bids priced below what the work actually costs in order to win the tender, and then annexes, extended deadlines and add-ons that bring the price back up to where it was. The result is a building, a piece of software or a service that costs more than the most expensive initial bid would have - just spread across more documents.

Anyone who wants to see what that looks like in numbers need only check how many Macedonian infrastructure projects finished at the sum originally contracted.

The other changes

There are plans to upgrade the electronic marketplace for low-value procurement, with the aim of wider use and more competition between economic operators - a measure planned for 2026. The price-quality criterion is an activity under the Reform Agenda for 2027.

The remit of the Public Procurement Bureau is also being widened in the area of digital tools for monitoring procedures, identifying risks and preventing possible abuses and corrupt practices. A legal basis is being created for web services and automatic data exchange between institutions.

Instead of the current periodic recertification with a repeat exam, a system of continuous professional development is being introduced for procurement officers.

Where the difference between a law and a change lies

All these measures stem from the Reform Agenda and the EU Growth Plan for the Western Balkans, which means they are an obligation rather than an initiative. That does not make them bad - it makes them checkable, since the EU tracks the deadlines.

But there is a point at which the law stops. A digital tool that "identifies risks" produces a report; the report goes to somebody who decides whether to act on it. The State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption already has cases sitting open while contracts keep being signed. No new web service solves that.

"Best value for money" is likewise a criterion that somebody assesses. Who assesses quality, by what yardstick, and what happens when the assessment is disputed - those are the questions on which it will become clear whether the law works. Until then we have a better text. Whether we have better procurement will be known when the first tender is annulled because the cheapest bid was the worst one.