It was apparently a sweet deal for sellers, but Türkiye’s Court of Accounts says Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) paid up to four times as much for the acquisition of some desserts, from traditional Turkish baklava to other delicacies.
The court is the sole and highest authority to inspect the work of municipalities across Türkiye and regularly inspects accounts to see whether public funds are misused. An inspection report from 2025 recently made public revealed serious possible irregularities in procurement, something that may further tarnish the image of the municipality whose former mayor is currently in custody on charges of corruption.
The report found that IBB failed to establish a realistic estimated cost for a contract worth more than TL 94 million ($1.87 million) for the "purchase of syrup-soaked desserts” awarded through a negotiated procurement procedure. The report noted that the contractor's registered place of business was in Muş, a small city in eastern Türkiye, and it had only one insured employee throughout the contract period. It also found that, despite a contractual ban on subcontracting, the work had been sourced from a subcontractor.
Referring to the provisions of the Public Procurement Law and the Implementing Regulation on Procurement of Goods concerning the determination of estimated costs, the report stated that IBB had obtained price quotations from four companies to establish the estimated cost and based its calculation solely on these quotations. It also noted that the contract prices of the same products from previous procurement procedures had not been included in the estimated cost calculation.
The report noted that three of the companies from which price quotations had been obtained were invited to submit bids in the negotiated procurement procedure and two of them submitted offers.
"An examination revealed that prices in procurements conducted through the negotiated procedure were relatively high when compared with prices in subsequent tenders. Rather than offering competitive prices reflecting actual market conditions, companies submitted bids close to or below the estimated cost but above prevailing market rates. The prices established in the procurement in question through the negotiated procedure were higher than those in subsequent open tenders. Accordingly, the fact that the same products could be procured at lower prices in subsequent periods clearly demonstrates that the estimated cost, and consequently the contract price, did not reflect market conditions."
In this context, the report included a table comparing the prices of dessert procurement covering March and April with those in previous and subsequent tenders. It stated that walnut kadayıf, which was procured at TL 300 per unit in January and February 2025 and TL 370 between May and December, was purchased at a unit price of TL 572 through the negotiated procedure. Meanwhile, cold baklava, which was procured at TL 370 per unit in January and February and TL 506 per unit between May and December, was purchased at a unit price of TL 1,200 through the negotiated procedure.
The report stated that although the contract explicitly prohibited the employment of subcontractors, the work was effectively carried out through a subcontractor that had also been awarded the previous procurement, as the contractor lacked production facilities and sufficient technical capacity.
"This constitutes a clear violation of the contractual provisions and indicates that the technical qualifications and capacities of the bidders invited during the negotiated procurement process were not properly assessed. Furthermore, the fact that the subcontractor actually performing the work was also the contractor in the previous procurement for the same products indicates that, although the same products were effectively supplied by the same contractor, the procurement was carried out at higher prices compared with the previous contract."
Municipality's response
The report also included IBB's response to the Court of Accounts' findings. It noted that IBB had maintained that the process was conducted in compliance with the relevant legislation. The municipality argued that the negotiated procurement covered a two-month period during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan (when municipalities often provide free meals and desserts for fast-breaking dinners), with 72% of the products required to be supplied in single-use plastic packaging, compared with just 5% in the open tender. It also stated that approximately 70% of the products procured through the negotiated procedure had to be individually portioned, packaged, labeled and boxed, arguing that packaging, labor and logistics costs were the main reasons for the price differences.
The report noted that IBB had also stated that the high-priced cold baklava item was not included in the menus. Regarding the subcontracting issue, the municipality argued that although the contract prohibited subcontracting, there was no concrete finding that the work had been entirely transferred to another company. It maintained that the contractor had procured the products in its capacity as an authorized dealer, adding that sourcing products from other manufacturers within the food industry's supply chain was a normal commercial practice and did not constitute subcontracting. It also said this had been documented through delivery notes and invoices.
However, the report maintained that the municipality's explanation did not address the central issue concerning the estimated cost: "Although it was claimed that the estimated cost had been determined using a method compliant with the legislation, the issue criticized in the finding is not primarily the method used to calculate the estimated cost, but rather the failure to include the contract prices of previous procurements involving the same products in the calculation, thereby producing an estimated cost that did not reflect prevailing market rates. Indeed, while syrup-soaked walnut kadayıf was procured at TL 300 in a procurement conducted during the same period, the same product was purchased at TL 572 through the negotiated procedure, while cold baklava was purchased at TL 1,200 instead of TL 370. This clearly demonstrates that the estimated cost did not reflect market conditions."
The report also stated that failing to invite other companies operating in the market, apart from those that had submitted price quotations for the estimated cost calculation, was incompatible with the principles of competition and equal treatment. It noted that 72% of four items and all of three other items were required to be packaged, while the remaining 14 items in the contract were exempt from this requirement. Moreover, it found that unit prices in the negotiated procurement were significantly higher than those in subsequent open tenders, even for items that had no packaging requirements.
"The fact that tel kadayıf was procured at TL 660 instead of TL 168 (3.9 times higher), trileçe at TL 660 instead of TL 225 (2.9 times higher), cold baklava at TL 1,200 instead of TL 506 (2.4 times higher), şekerpare at TL 460 instead of TL 202 (2.3 times higher) and sütlü nuriye at TL 900 instead of TL 506 (1.8 times higher) cannot be explained by packaging requirements."
The report also recalled that although IBB had stated that cold baklava was not included in the menus, 748.2 kilograms (1,649.5 pounds) of the product had nevertheless been purchased, resulting in a payment of more than TL 897,000.