The Latvian Competition Council has issued a formal call to medical institutions to reform their public procurement processes after discovering that rigid tender requirements are actively squeezing out suppliers and stifling market competition. The regulator’s intervention follows a recent evaluation of a medical materials and instruments tender where structural flaws led to highly inefficient outcomes. In one segment of the evaluated procurement, the institution selected the most expensive bidder, while another segment was canceled entirely after the only available offer was rejected.
According to the antitrust watchdog, the root of the problem lies in how medical tenders are structured. Procurement documentation frequently demands that a single supplier provide an exhaustive, all-in-one set of medical products or implant systems to win a contract. While multiple companies in Latvia specialize in individual components or specific groups of medical items, they are effectively disqualified from bidding because they cannot supply the entire requested catalog. This rigid packaging forces healthcare institutions to rely on a limited pool of full-range intermediaries, leading to situations where lower-priced, specialized bids are rejected on technicalities, or tenders collapse due to a lack of complete offers.
The Competition Council stresses that medical institutions must align their technical specifications with the actual diversity of the supply market. Rather than bundling massive portfolios into single contracts, authorities are urged to adopt modular procurement formats used successfully by other healthcare entities. Allowing market participants to bid on individual items or specific subsets of goods naturally invites broader competition, captures the strengths of specialized manufacturers, and protects public funds from inflated monopoly pricing.
Furthermore, the regulator highlighted improper branding practices within technical specifications. Medical institutions must refrain from naming specific manufacturers unless absolutely necessary. When specific brands must be cited for compatibility reasons, the documentation must explicitly include an “or equivalent” clause, paired with transparent criteria outlining how equivalent goods will be fairly evaluated. The Council noted that the principle of equivalence must be a functional reality rather than a legal formality.
To prevent these restrictive bottlenecks, the watchdog recommends that contracting authorities invest heavily in comprehensive, upfront market research before drafting tender rules. Identifying available technologies, exploring compatibility options, and maintaining meticulous records of this research ensures transparency and justifies procurement decisions. The Council concluded that frequent tender cancellations or single-bidder scenarios are clear indicators of market failure, urging institutions to utilize official procurement checklists to eliminate hidden barriers and safeguard public healthcare budgets.
