It is easy to assume that a missing price is an occasional lapse. In several national records it is the norm, applied so consistently that the field may as well not exist — and the markets where this happens have nothing else in common, which suggests it is a decision each made separately rather than a shared limitation.
| Market | Notices sampled | Awards | Values published |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | 1,000 | 729 | 0 |
| Nepal | 495 | 0 | 0 |
| New Zealand | 239 | 0 | 0 |
| Zambia | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| Rwanda | 95 | 0 | 0 |
| Honduras | 1,000 | 52 | 0 |
| Paraguay | 562 | 0 | 1% |
READ OF THE MONTH
Uruguay is the sharpest case because it is otherwise a well-run record: 729 of a thousand notices reached the award stage and every one of them names the winner, which is better than most of Europe manages. It simply never states an amount. New Zealand’s record is led by the education ministry’s school infrastructure programme and the health service, both publishing steadily and neither pricing anything. Nepal’s road and irrigation directorates do the same across 495 notices. The pattern to notice is that these are not incomplete records — they are records that made a different choice about which half of a transaction is public. A supplier can learn who won in Uruguay and what is being built in Nepal, but not what either was worth, and no amount of diligence recovers a number that was never published.
Data: Otnox — live procurement intelligence across 56 markets. Basis: recent published notices per market, checked for any monetary value, 2026-06-26..2026-07-26.
