The General Directorate of Public Procurement (DGCP) clarified that the report titled “The other Senasa: nutrition and dialysis, RD$13 billion under exceptional contracts in the SNS,” published by the newspaper Panorama, contains interpretations that distort the legal nature of the exclusivity procedures and that can generate erroneous perceptions about their legality and scope.
Indeed, although the aforementioned journalistic work indicates that the National Health Service (SNS) used “exception processes”, it is important to specify that these are not discretionary or arbitrary actions, but rather the application of the exclusivity modality, provided for in Law No. 340-06, and in article 3 of its Implementing Regulation No. 543-12, which recognizes the existence of special contracting procedures that can be used exceptionally when required. the nature of the good or service.
In that sense, presenting these contracts as an irregular practice is not only inaccurate, but also distorts the legal framework in force at the time of the execution of these processes.
Numeral 5 of article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation establishes that exclusivity goods or services are those that can only be supplied by a limited number of suppliers, which implies that the State must adapt the procedure to a restricted market reality. Therefore, exclusivity is not a mechanism to evade competition, but rather a legal tool designed precisely to guarantee it within a reduced universe of qualified suppliers.
The general director of the DGCP, Carlos Pimentel, stated that the statement that the exclusivity modality “avoids open bidding” under the assumption that “only one supplier can supply the good or service” is technically and legally incorrect.
He explained that the applicable regulations (Law No. 340-06 and its Implementing Regulation No. 543-12) do not condition exclusivity on the existence of a single supplier, but rather on the verification that the good or service can only be offered by a limited number of suppliers with installed technical capacity, which is substantially different.
“In the case of comprehensive services, such as clinical nutrition and dialysis, the use of this modality does not respond to a discretionary choice, but rather to market conditions and needs, including high specialization, critical infrastructure and regulatory requirements, which limit the number of providers capable of providing such services safely and continuously,” Pimentel said.
In that order, the governing body of Public Procurement highlighted that parenteral nutrition and dialysis services correspond to sectors of high medical complexity, characterized by high technical, logistical and regulatory requirements. Hence, the data verified by the DGCP show that participation in these processes has been consistently limited, ranging between one (1) and four (4) bidders, even in other contracting modalities.
“Consequently, pretending that these processes are developed under massive open bidding schemes ignores the real structure of a highly specialized market and is incompatible with the nature of the services involved. In critical areas such as dialysis and clinical nutrition, the State has the unavoidable duty to guarantee the fundamental right to health and life, ensuring the continuity, quality and safety of the benefits,” indicated the head of the DGCP.
Consistent with the above, the DGCP clarified that the SNS procedures were not developed in a closed manner. On the contrary, the aforementioned institution implemented publicity and openness mechanisms, including calls for expressions of interest, through which potential bidders were allowed to express their willingness to participate. This instrument, far from restricting competition, is intended to verify the real existence of suppliers in the market.
In fact, it was expressly established that no one would be disqualified for not presenting said statement, which confirms its merely informative and non-exclusive nature.
Likewise, and in the exercise of its legal powers, the DGCP has known and decided on various administrative resources related to these processes, carrying out a comprehensive and exhaustive analysis of the technical and legal aspects involved. As a result, these claims were rejected, consistently determining that the exclusivity was duly justified, that no violations of public procurement principles were evident, that the specifications did not unduly limit participation, and that the actions of the SNS were duly motivated.
Although the DGCP recognizes the value of public scrutiny and the role of the media in a democratic society, it also considers it essential that these debates be developed with technical rigor and legal precision, avoiding interpretations that could generate misinformation.
In short, the contracting processes for nutrition and dialysis services carried out by the SNS do not constitute an improper use of exceptional mechanisms, but rather the legitimate, necessary and legal application of the figure of exclusivity, in a context where the supply of providers is structurally limited.
The General Directorate of Public Procurement, in its capacity as governing body, reaffirms its commitment to transparency, legality and efficiency, as well as to the defense of technical and legal truth, remembering that rigor in information is as important as rigor in public management.
