When I look at public procurement, I notice that many tenders are essentially self-serving. For example, tenders for gas and electricity, telephony, fuel, etc., come up frequently. Also airline tickets and the like.

I don't know how much money it is, but it is quite time-consuming for both sides to prepare a tender. It seems to me that we could do joint tendering for all public institutions to supply these things, or simply exempt it from public procurement, because it doesn't matter whether it goes to state-owned firm A or state-owned firm B. This is the case with energy products, for example.

The second point on this subject is the rigidity of the tendering system. For example, if a public undertaking has a tender for, say, mobile telephony services, and has a need for the services of a competitor (because it offers, for example, better coverage in a particular location or similar), then it is not so easy to procure the services of the competitor, or it is practically impossible to do so.

The third bizarreness is location. A lot of unnecessary journeys are made across the country because someone from the other side of the country has won a tender, so I would suggest that tenders should also look at location. For example: if there is a petrol station nearby, use that, rather than driving to a neighbouring town just because the tender has been awarded to a competing firm. All the potential savings, or even losses (in time and money), are lost here because of such bizarreness.

 
Then there are the groceries. Why is there a need for susceptible procurement? It is a waste of time for nursing homes, schools, kindergartens. Let them order healthy, local food, without tenders. 1 document instead of a whole mountain of documents.

 
Come on government, action, lean state.