About the Project
The database for more transparent procurements in the Health Sector coincides with a catalog of transparent open data on tender procedures in institutions of this Sector. It contains well structured information for every procurement procedure or contract regarding public issues; purchase of goods and drugs; service contracts or public private partnerships (PPP).
The database and the catalog are in line with the Open Contracting Partnership’s principles and standards.
The data represent each tender procedure starting from January 1st, 2016. More specifically, the source of the well structured data displayed in this website are governmental publications, such as:
The aim of the well structured information is to be accessible to the public at any time (consistent), easily readable, easy to use and re-use (conversion fo tender passports into JSON or Excel format), easily understood. The above-mentioned standards are not applicable in the official governmental publications.
RedFlag is a system for quality assessment and scanning of procurement procedures. It automatically selects and marks, through algorithms, some procedures that present indexes of potential risk for illegal, unethical behaviours, higher risk of favoritism, lack of competition and potential risk for unequal competition.
The database and the RedFlags algorithm empower some important civilian groups such as:
The RedFlag instrument is incorporated with the intent to assist public audit institutions to obtain real-time indications on tenders and contracts with higher misuse probability, unequal competition, favoritism, clientelism or corruption.
In the context of this project, it is considered an Institution related to the health sector any public or budgetary entity that has a role in policies related to Public Health. Moreover, the term Procurement is used for each competition or tender, even those part of a group of procurement procedures (lot), as long as for each procedure a separate competition (competitor, object, contractor, special contract) is held. As a consequence, the number of procurement procedures from government institutions’ evidence may differ from the number of procurements in this database. This is done aiming to have a detailed monitoring for each contract.
The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed are those of the author/s and do not necessarily represent those of the Donors.