20 awards, 111.4 million manats, 7 buyers — a concentration and timing signal at Gəncə Körpü Tikinti-2
AZTender's data cut of 14 November 2026 shows Gəncə Körpü Tikinti-2 OJSC recording 20 award records across 7 buyers worth 111,383,583.21 AZN, with its two latest, 9.41m AZN combined, from one buyer nine days apart.
AZTender's data cut of 14 November 2026, taken at 03:10 UTC, shows a single supplier, Gəncə Körpü Tikinti-2 OJSC ("GƏNCƏ KÖRPÜ TİKİNTİ-2" ASC), recording 20 award records across 7 distinct buyers worth 111,383,583.21 AZN combined, spanning 5 November 2024 to 6 November 2026. Its two most recent records — both from the same buyer, Gəncə City Housing-Communal Production Union (Gəncə Şəhər Mənzil-Kommunal Təsərrüfatı İstehsalat Birliyi) — were published nine days apart and total 9,408,766.89 AZN.
The numbers
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Supplier | Gəncə Körpü Tikinti-2 OJSC ("GƏNCƏ KÖRPÜ TİKİNTİ-2" ASC) |
| Lifetime total | 111,383,583.21 AZN across 20 awards, 7 buyers (5 Nov 2024 – 6 Nov 2026) |
| Latest record | 4,598,827.79 AZN, published 6 Nov 2026 — street, avenue, park and block landscaping |
| Preceding record, same buyer | 4,809,939.10 AZN, published 28 Oct 2026 |
| Combined pair | 9,408,766.89 AZN, nine days apart |
| Buyer for both | Gəncə City Housing-Communal Production Union (Gəncə Şəhər Mənzil-Kommunal Təsərrüfatı İstehsalat Birliyi) |
What the number is not
The 111.4 million figure sums 20 result records, not 20 signed or paid contracts: only 5 of the 20 carry a matching contract date in the registry. Seven buyers awarding the same contractor across two years is not, by itself, evidence of coordination or favouritism — a regional construction firm working several municipal and district clients would show a similar spread either way. No bidder-count claim is made: Azerbaijan's open procurement data does not publish how many firms competed for any of these 20 records.
Why it is a signal
- How many of the 15 uncontracted records will later show a matching, dated contract entry, and when?
- What distinguishes the landscaping package published 6 November from the one published nine days earlier, beyond sharing a buyer and a supplier?
- Do the other 6 buyers in this supplier's history show the same clustering pattern, or is Gəncə City Housing-Communal Production Union an outlier?
- What procedure type governs each of the 20 records, and does it stay consistent across the seven buyers?
- Has this supplier's buyer count changed shape over the two-year window, or has it concentrated toward fewer, larger clients?
What AZTender shows
AZTender's entity-report module links every result record naming a given supplier back to the buyers that issued them, which is how 20 scattered registry entries for one contractor resolve into a single two-year, seven-buyer history rather than 20 unconnected rows. The same view flags which of those records still lack a matching contract date, separating result announcements from confirmed contract-stream entries. A bidder benchmarking competition in regional construction work, or an auditor or journalist screening suppliers for buyer concentration, can pull that history at aztender.ai.
A signal is not a verdict. Twenty award records to one supplier across seven buyers and two years, including two from one buyer nine days apart, can have an ordinary administrative explanation, such as a multi-site municipal works programme running on parallel tracks, and no conclusion about wrongdoing, affiliation or overpricing is drawn here.
