Makedonija Pat: Denies that it engaged an 'own' firm for pruning

On August 22, 2026 at 19:44 the Public Enterprise for Maintenance and Protection of Main and Regional Roads published a rebuttal in which it rejects the claim that when selecting a contractor for pruning branches and cutting trees it had engaged an 'own' firm or that there was a connection with the current authorities.

The statement says that an untrue and misleading impression is being created in the public by comparing the total values of contracts from different procurements without adequately explaining that these concern different unit prices, different scope and different economic content.

"Particularly problematic is the wording contained in the headline itself that now an 'own' firm is being engaged, whereby the reader, even before becoming acquainted with the content of the text, is suggested the existence of a political or other impermissible connection between the selected economic operator and the current authorities, i.e., it creates the impression that the choice of the economic operator is not the result of a legally conducted public procurement procedure, but of its alleged closeness to certain political structures.

As an addition, the Public Enterprise points out the following:

• the price for mowing grass in 2023 was 12.00 denars per m², while according to the 2026 public procurement it is 4.50 denars per m²;
• the price for pruning branches in 2023 was 456.00 denars per m², while in 2026 it is 8.50 denars per m²;
• the price for cutting trees in 2023 was 2,520.00 denars per piece, while in 2026 it is 800.00 denars per piece;
• the 2026 public procurement also includes waste collection, while in 2023 this service represented an additional cost of around 400,000 euros;
• the contract concluded in 2026 is a framework agreement, and to date only around 20% of its total value has been used;
• the 2026 public procurement covers a larger scope of work, with significantly lower unit prices for the services.

The Public Enterprise emphasizes that it pointed out these differences to the editorial office but, according to the statement, despite the information received, the headline with the allusion to an 'own' firm was retained, which further distorts the public's perception.

"In this particular case, the expression 'own firm' is not supported by facts from which it would follow that there existed any illegal connection, favoritism or influence on the public procurement procedure. On the contrary, the use of such wording, in a context in which emphasis is placed on the alleged political closeness of the company's owner, creates in the average reader exactly such an impression and thereby directly affects the reputation of the Public Enterprise and trust in the legality and professionalism of its operations," the rebuttal states.

Photo: press material from the event