In the report prepared by the Court of Accounts, findings were included that the approximate cost of the "purchase of sherbet dessert" work with a contract price of 94 million 815 thousand 200 lira, which was carried out by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality through bargaining, was not determined realistically, that the center of activity of the contractor who took the job was Muş, that there was only one insured personnel during the work, and that the work was procured from the subcontractor even though it was closed to subcontractors.
In the report, which mentions the legislative provisions regarding the determination of the approximate cost in the Public Procurement Law and the Goods Procurement Tenders Implementation Regulation, it is stated that IMM received price offers from 4 companies in order to determine the approximate cost, the approximate cost was created only on the basis of these offers, and the previous contract prices of the products were not included in the calculation in the approximate cost calculation.
In the report, it was noted that three of the companies from which price offers were received were invited to bid for the negotiated tender and two of these companies submitted bids, and said: "In the examination, it was understood that the prices in the bargained purchases were realized at relatively high prices compared to the prices of the subsequent tenders. It was determined that instead of competitive prices reflecting the real market conditions, the companies submitted offers close to the approximate cost or not exceeding this cost but above the market prices, and the prices in the said bargained procurement were higher compared to the open tender prices made in the following period. This was determined." "The fact that the same products can be procured at lower prices in subsequent periods clearly shows that the approximate cost and therefore the contract price do not reflect market conditions." made his assessment.
It was determined that the purchase was procured from a subcontractor in violation of the contract, causing the price increase.
In this context, in the report, which includes a table containing the comparative values of the "purchase of sherbet desserts" business, covering the months of March and April, with the previous and subsequent tenders, it is stated that kadayıf with sherbet and walnuts, which were procured at a price of 300 liras in January-February and 370 liras in May-December of 2025, were purchased at a bargain price of 572 liras, and 370 liras in January-February, It was reported that cold baklava, which was supplied at a price of 506 lira in May-December, was procured at a unit price of 1200 lira when purchased through bargaining.
The report stated that although there was a clear provision in the contract stating that subcontractors could not be employed, the work was actually carried out through the subcontracting of the company, which was also the contractor of the previous purchase, due to the contractor's lack of production location and sufficient technical capacity, and the following findings were included:
"This situation constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of the contract and shows that the technical competencies and capacities of the invited bidders were not properly evaluated during the negotiated tender stage. In addition, it is understood that the subcontractor who actually carried out the work was also the contractor of the previous purchase of the same products, which caused the same products to be realized at a higher price compared to the previous purchase, even though they were actually procured from the same contractor."
Defense from IMM that "the price difference is due to packaging, labor and logistics costs"
The report regarding the Court of Accounts' findings in question also included the response given by IMM. It was mentioned in the report that IMM announced that the process was carried out in accordance with the legislation, that the negotiated purchase was made for two months within the month of Ramadan, that 72 percent of the products were requested in disposable plastic packaging in this tender, while this rate was limited to 5 percent in the open tender, and that approximately 70 percent of the products in the bargain purchase required packaging, labeling and boxing in portions, and therefore packaging, labor and logistics costs were the main reason for the price difference.
In the report, it was stated that the high-priced cold baklava item was not included in the menus. Regarding the subcontractor, it was stated that although there was a subcontractor ban in the contract, there was no concrete determination that the work was completely transferred to another company, the contractor supplied the products as an authorized dealer, and that the supply of products from other manufacturers within the supply chain in the food industry was the ordinary flow of commercial life and could not be considered as subcontracting, and that this was documented with delivery notes and invoices.
It was determined that "an approximate cost that does not reflect the market rate was created"
In the report where the IMM's response was evaluated by the Court of Accounts, it was stated that "Although it was stated that the approximate cost was determined by a method in accordance with the legislation, what is criticized in the finding is not the method by which the approximate cost is calculated, but rather the fact that the contract prices of previous purchases for the same products are not included in the calculation, thus creating an approximate cost that does not reflect the market market. As a matter of fact, in the purchase made in the same period, sherbet walnut kadayıf was procured for 300 liras, while in the tender made by bargaining method, the same price was not included in the calculation." "The fact that the product was purchased at 572 lira and the cold baklava was purchased at 1200 lira instead of 370 lira clearly shows that the approximate cost does not reflect market conditions." It was said.
In the report, it was stated that not inviting different companies operating in the market, other than the companies that bid on approximate cost calculations, was incompatible with the principles of competition and equal treatment. It was stated that 72 percent of 4 items were required to be packaged, 3 items were requested to be fully packaged, and the remaining 14 items in the contract were excluded from this obligation. On the other hand, it was determined that the unit prices in the bargained purchases were much higher compared to the later open tender prices, even for the items that did not have any packaging obligation.
"Tel kadayıf costs 660 liras (3.9 times) instead of 168 liras, trileçe costs 660 liras (2.9 times) instead of 225 liras, cold baklava costs 1200 liras (2.4 times) instead of 506 liras, Şekerpare costs 460 liras (2.3 times) instead of 202 liras, and milky nuriye costs 460 liras (2.3 times) instead of 202 liras. "The fact that it was purchased at 900 lira (1.8 times) instead of 506 lira is to an extent that cannot be explained on the grounds of packaging." Although it was stated in the report that included the findings that the cold baklava item was not included in the menu, it was reminded that 748.20 kilograms of this item were purchased and 897 thousand 840 liras were paid.
"Approximate cost determinations in purchases should be made realistically, taking into account the legislation."
In the report that included IMM's response to the subcontractor ban, it was determined that "The authorized dealer certificate submitted by the contractor was issued by the company that was the contractor of the previous tender, the vehicle used in the work in accordance with the technical specifications also belonged to this company, the contractor had only one insured personnel during the work, and the company's center of activity was located in Muş. When all these issues were evaluated together, it was not possible for the contractor to actually produce and deliver the products subject to the contract with this organizational structure and number of personnel, and the essential performance of the work was completely subcontracted." It is understood that it was fulfilled by the contractor company." evaluation was made.
In the conclusion section of the report regarding this tender, it is stated that "As a result, approximate cost determinations for the purchases to be made must be made realistically, taking into account the issues specified in the legislation, it must be ensured that the number of companies that will provide an effective competitive environment in negotiated tenders is invited, if the subcontractor ban is stipulated in the contracts, this ban must be complied with, and the technical capacities of the bidders must be carefully evaluated at the tender stage." It was said.
