A tender worth around 10 million euros excluding VAT , for the establishment of a court case management system in Albania, has become the focus of a fierce procedural clash between the companies Advanced Business Solutions (ABS) and Data Log on the one hand and Soft & Solution and KREATX on the other.
The latter were declared the winners of the High Judicial Council's mega tender for the Integrated Court Case Management System (ICMIS), while ABS and its partner accuse the Bid Evaluation Committee of having unjustly disqualified them even though, according to them, the bid given was the best.

Previously, Advanced Business Solutions (ABS) had complained to the Public Procurement Commission, while recently the arguments for the objection have been revealed.
In addition to requalifying their bid, ABS and Data Log are also requesting a hearing with the group that evaluated the bids to "understand the basis for the decision."
Thus, ABS's request goes beyond their return to the competition, reflecting a strong clash between the parties and the Supreme Court for a considerable sum of 10 million euros.
The Supreme Court declared the winning bid of "Kreatx" and "Soft and Solution" worth around 9.3 million euros excluding VAT , while ABS and Data Log offered around 8.3 million euros excluding VAT.
The "Sharks" of the AKSHI tenders
Advanced Business Solutions and Soft & Solution are the two companies that have received the vast majority of AKSHI tenders in recent years. As shown by treasury data published by OpenSpendingAlbania, ABS has received around 48 million euros in payments from the treasury over the last 5 years, while Soft & Solution comes in with around 24 million euros.


The two respective partners of ABS and Soft & Solution, Data Log and KREATX, are ranked much lower.

This clash comes in an electoral context, where ABS has been portrayed in the media as a company close to Prime Minister Rama's family, while recently Mr. Panajot Gjiknuri, brother of former minister Damian Gjiknuri, has become part of Mr. Ermal Beqiri's partner of "Soft and Solution", the company KREATX, turning this into a "legal battle" within the majority for 10 million euros.

Below is a summary of Advanced Business Solutions' claims in this confrontation with Soft & Solution in the CPC:
One of the main points of disqualification was the cooperation contract between ABS and Data Log, which, according to the Supreme Court, was invalid because it was based on Law No. 9643/2006 , now repealed.
But ABS says that this is a formal deficiency , which in no way makes the document invalid:
"Reference to a previous law cannot automatically lead to absolute invalidity of the contract," the complaint states, adding that the object of the contract and the will of the parties were clear and legally valid.
Error in the name of the authority – lapsus
The cooperation document lists the AKSHI as the contracting authority, instead of the KLGJ . This was also used as a reason for disqualification.
But the ABS calls this a technical slip , stressing that the representatives and objective of the document are correct.
"This is a formal, non-essential error. It does not affect the content of the contract nor the legal framework of the cooperation," they emphasize.
Another reason for disqualification was the failure to meet the criterion of at least 15 insured employees for February 2025. But
ABS says that it has officially declared that the staff was active , has submitted payroll and tax documents , while the Supreme Court's verification was based only on an insurance movement and was done outside the context of the public procurement law.
"This is a formal and selective interpretation of a criterion that is intended to assess operational capacity, not penalize for an administrative delay," the company emphasizes.
Technical solutions – “we have them, but they didn't listen to us”
The Supreme Court claims that important modules and licenses were missing such as:
SOAR, SIEM, Oracle, Nutanix, advanced replication , etc.
But ABS states that it had offered equivalent or internationally standardized solutions , but KVO did not technically review them, did not request clarifications and made a narrow interpretation of the criteria.
"Our solutions were valid and usable, but no one gave us the opportunity to clarify technical details. The evaluation process was biased," the complaint states.
According to the Supreme Court, ABS had not submitted complete technical documentation, including catalogs marked with part numbers for some products.
The company admits that there may have been delays in formatting some parts, but nothing that constitutes a serious violation or non-fulfillment of the criteria .
"If there were any uncertainties, the contracting authority had the obligation to seek clarification under the public procurement law," the complaint states.
ABS emphasizes that in previous procedures with the same authority it was assessed as the winner with the same documentation , while now it is being disqualified for the same elements:
"In all previous procedures with the Supreme Court, we have never been disqualified for these reasons. Now for the first time they are used as an argument for exclusion," the document states.
What ABS requires in general:
The ABS requests the CPC:
The repeal of the KVO decision for disqualification.
The reinstatement of the ABS – Data Log consortium in the competition.
Holding a hearing with the KVO members to understand the basis of the decision.
The minutes and full documentation administered for the winning bid.
Clarification for the technical evaluators and the method of assistance used in the evaluation./ skyweb.al