Health Procurement in Norway

Introduction

Norway has a universal, publicly funded healthcare system built on values of equality, safety and sustainable development. The specialist health service is delivered through four regional health authorities (Helse Sør‑Øst, Helse Vest, Helse Midt‑Norge and Helse Nord), each owning health trusts (hospital trusts) that operate hospitals and specialized services. These authorities jointly own Sykehusinnkjøp HF, the Norwegian Hospital Procurement Trust. Sykehusinnkjøp centralizes procurement for specialist healthcare, negotiating national agreements for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, digital solutions, logistics services and other goods. The Ministry of Health and Care Services sets overall policy while the Norwegian Directorate of Health (Helsedirektoratet) and the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth (NDE) issue guidance on digital health and data protection. Procurement in Norway is subject to the Public Procurement Act (2016) and the Public Procurement Regulations (2016), which transpose EU directives. The health sector also follows sector‑specific frameworks such as Nye metoder for introducing new health technologies and the Joint AI Plan for artificial intelligence.

The government recognizes procurement as a lever for innovation: public procurement accounts for roughly NOK 743 billion per year, and it expects the health and care services to use this purchasing power to drive innovation while complying with fundamental principles of competition, equal treatment and transparency. Hospitals and municipalities rely heavily on imports for medicines and medical equipment, so procurement processes must attract foreign suppliers yet protect patient safety and privacy. Innovation in digital health and AI also raises ethical and legal questions. This guide provides an integrated view of health procurement in Norway, covering hospitals, health trusts, medtech and digital health with special attention to AI, privacy and evidence requirements. It is aimed at foreign suppliers, medtech companies, digital health innovators and policymakers seeking to understand how the system works, where the opportunities lie and what pitfalls to avoid.

1. Regulatory and organisational framework

1.1 Public procurement law

The Public Procurement Act (LOA, 2016) and its regulations implement the EU procurement directives. They require contracting authorities to conduct procurements above defined thresholds through transparent procedures, with advance publication of tenders on Doffin (the national tender database) and, for tenders covered by the EEA rules, on TED (Tenders Electronic Daily). Procurement must respect the principles of competition, non‑discrimination and equal treatment. The Act also requires proportionality (criteria and requirements must be appropriate to the contract’s scope) and predictability (suppliers should know the rules in advance). The system includes simplified rules for contracts below NOK 1.3 million (national regime), whereas contracts above approximately NOK 2.3 million for goods and services or NOK 56 million for works follow the EEA regime (values adjusted periodically). Health‑specific contracts for social and health services may use more flexible procedures if the contract value is below EUR 750,000.

1.2 Specialist healthcare procurement structure

Norway’s four regional health authorities jointly own Sykehusinnkjøp HF, which executed around 2,700 procurements worth NOK 71 billion between 2020–2022 and 1,037 procurements worth USD 2.2 billion in 2024. About 80 % of these procurements were for a single health trust, but national procurements accounted for two‑thirds of the value. Sykehusinnkjøp acts as a central procurement body (CPB) in the health sector: it identifies needs, plans procurements, publishes tender notices, receives bids, negotiates, evaluates and awards contracts. The trust has divisions covering pharmaceuticals, medical devices, non‑medical goods and services, ICT and digital platforms. From March 2026 it transitioned its procurement platform from Mercell to Ivalua, consolidating tendering, contract management and supplier portals to streamline processes. Suppliers must register on Ivalua and may still finish procurements initiated in Mercell. Each supplier contact must use a unique email tied to the correct legal entity, and registration is verified by the trust.

1.3 Hospitals, health trusts and municipalities

Health trusts (hospital trusts) are state‑owned enterprises delivering specialist healthcare. They rely on national framework agreements for pharmaceuticals and high‑value medical devices, but may run local or regional procurements for minor equipment, maintenance and services. Municipalities are responsible for primary care and long‑term care; they procure nursing home services, digital care solutions and welfare technology. Many municipalities lack procurement expertise and depend on guidance from the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management (DFØ), which provides templates and training. DFØ also promotes innovative procurement—procedures that encourage suppliers to propose novel solutions. For example, DFØ facilitates supplier dialogues, innovation partnerships and pre‑commercial procurement.

2. The procurement process

Health procurement generally follows the steps mandated by the Public Procurement Act and adapted by Sykehusinnkjøp and the health trusts:

2.1 Needs assessment and planning

Procurement begins with identifying clinical and operational needs. Hospitals consult clinicians, engineers, IT staff and finance departments to determine requirements and budgets. For digital health and AI, an AI‑risk and quality assurance assessment is conducted. The Norwegian Directorate of Health’s Report on quality assurance for AI systems highlights the need to consider legality, ethics and technical robustness. It warns about the “black‑box” problem, bias and hallucination in AI models; procurement teams must understand these risks and plan how to manage them. Potential innovations may also trigger the New Methods (Nye metoder) framework if they affect specialist care resources.

2.2 Market dialogue and supplier engagement

Sykehusinnkjøp uses dialogue conferences, pipeline meetings and market surveys before major procurements. Such dialogues inform suppliers about upcoming tenders and allow contracting authorities to refine requirements. The trust conducts about 300 dialogue meetings annually for pharmaceuticals alone and holds an annual supplier meeting involving industry associations. For innovative products or complex specifications, early dialogue helps align technology possibilities with clinical needs. DFØ encourages contracting authorities to contact the National Programme for Supplier Development to support innovation procurements.

2.3 Qualification and selection criteria

Qualification criteria verify that suppliers are capable and reliable. Under the public procurement rules, authorities may require:

• Legal and tax compliance: suppliers must provide a tax certificate (Skatteattest) confirming payment of taxes and duties. The Norwegian procurement regulations require a tax certificate for procurements over NOK 500,000; authorities use the eBevis digital service to verify tax compliance.
• Financial and technical capacity: evidence of financial stability, relevant experience, qualified personnel and quality systems. For medtech, suppliers often need ISO 13485 certification and proof of after‑sales support.
• HSE self‑declaration: historically required for contracts above NOK 100,000, it was abolished in 2015 but many entities still request a self‑declaration on health, safety and environment (HSE) standards. Suppliers should be prepared to provide this voluntarily.
• Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability: Sykehusinnkjøp emphasises ethical trade, environmental requirements and sustainable production for pharmaceuticals. The trust bases procurement requirements on the UN Sustainable Development Goals and objective criteria.

Authorities must not impose disproportionate conditions that limit competition. When using environmental or social criteria, they must relate to the contract subject and be objectively measurable. DFØ advises weighting environmental criteria at least 30 % in award criteria, but many entities still underutilise such criteria.

2.4 Tender notice and documentation

Procurements above NOK 100,000 must be published on Doffin; those above the EEA thresholds must also be published on TED. Tender documents include:

• Competition rules: procedure type (open, restricted, competitive dialogue, innovation partnership, etc.), timetable and submission requirements.
• Technical specifications: functional requirements, performance parameters, interoperability, cybersecurity and privacy standards. For medical devices, specifications must not refer to brands; they should be based on performance or functional requirements.
• Evidence requirements: where the procurement concerns a technology subject to New Methods, the documentation may include CE marking, conformity assessments and health technology assessments. The guidance criteria for managing medical devices under Nye metoder explain that the manufacturer is responsible for documenting conformity with fundamental requirements and CE marking is evidence of conformity. Before commissioning a national HTA, a suitability assessment checks whether sufficient underlying documentation exists. Risk classification determines which assessment procedure applies.
• Data protection and privacy: AI and digital health procurements must comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Norway’s Health Personnel Act and Patient Record Act. Tender documents typically require documentation of privacy impact assessments (DPIAs), data processing agreements, technical safeguards and compliance with the national health data service guidelines. The Directorate of Health’s AI report underscores the need to address explainability, bias, and robustness.

2.5 Submission and evaluation

Suppliers submit proposals via the Ivalua platform. Authorities must allow adequate time: 30 days for requests to participate and 25 days for offers in a competitive procedure with negotiation (or longer if the tender is complex). Each bid is opened electronically at the submission deadline; the bid opening is not public but the supplier list may be disclosed upon request.

Award criteria generally include price or cost, quality, sustainability, innovation and service. Price alone may be used for standardized commodities, but for medtech and digital health, authorities frequently use a best value approach, weighting technical quality heavily. Suppliers should provide detailed responses addressing each criterion, including clinical evidence, references and proof of interoperability.

Authorities must investigate abnormally low tenders. Under procurement rules, if a bid seems unusually low, the contracting authority must request an explanation and may reject the bid if the explanation does not justify the price or if the supplier violates labour or environmental obligations.

2.6 Contract award and standstill period

After evaluation, authorities issue a contract award notice. A standstill period (at least 10 days) applies before contract signature so that unsuccessful suppliers can consider complaints. Within this period suppliers may file a complaint to the Norwegian Complaints Board for Public Procurement (KOFA) requesting an injunction. If KOFA finds the complaint has merit, it may recommend re‑evaluation or cancellation; parties may also seek injunctive relief in the courts. If no complaint is filed, the contract is signed, published and enters into force.

2.7 Contract management and follow‑up

Good contract management is critical, especially for digital and AI solutions where performance may depend on data quality and user adoption. Authorities must monitor contract fulfilment, ensure compliance with privacy and cybersecurity obligations, and enforce sustainability and social criteria. Sykehusinnkjøp uses contract management teams and digital tools to track key performance indicators and supplier obligations.

3. Evidence requirements and the New Methods framework

3.1 Overview of New Methods (Nye metoder)

Nye metoder is the national system for managed introduction of new health technologies in Norway. It applies whenever an innovation could impose ongoing obligations on the specialist health service (recurring costs, changes in clinical pathways or national uniformity). The goal is to ensure that technologies are adopted only when the benefits outweigh the costs and capacity implications. Primary care and purely private activity are outside its remit.

Access to the system starts when clinicians, health authorities or sometimes industry submit a proposal to Bestillerforum RHF (Commissioning Forum) asking whether a technology warrants national scrutiny. At this stage the question is whether a national decision is needed, not whether the technology is effective. If the forum decides to proceed, it commissions a health technology assessment (HTA) from the Norwegian Medicines Agency (for medicines) or the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (for devices and diagnostics). The HTA analyses clinical efficacy, safety, health economics, organisational impact and budget implications. Assessments often take two or more years. The decision to adopt or reject the technology is then made by the Decision Forum composed of RHAs. Importantly, a completed assessment does not confer entitlement; the Decision Forum weighs severity, benefit, cost‑effectiveness and capacity before authorising use.

3.2 Guidance criteria for medical devices

The Guidance criteria for management of medical devices in Nye metoder outline how to decide whether a medical device should undergo a national HTA or a local mini‑HTA. Key points:

• Manufacturers must conduct a conformity assessment and CE‑mark their devices as evidence of compliance with fundamental requirements. Without CE marking the device cannot be marketed in Norway.
• A suitability assessment evaluates whether there is sufficient underlying documentation to conduct an HTA. Scarce or poor‑quality evidence may delay or preclude an HTA.
• Level criteria determine whether the assessment should be national or local (mini‑HTA). Factors include whether the technology has major consequences for patient care or budgets, whether it is high risk (e.g., implantable devices), whether it would be included in a national screening programme, whether a comprehensive health‑economic analysis is needed, and whether a pharmaceutical component is significant. Devices not meeting national criteria can be assessed locally.
• The guidance emphasises innovation: the degree of innovation should be considered in relevance criteria.

Suppliers seeking entry into Norway’s specialist health service should therefore prepare robust clinical evidence, economic models and risk analysis early. Absence of evidence or unrealistic claims can lead to rejection or local mini‑HTA rather than national adoption. Evidence generation may require clinical trials in Norwegian or European contexts; partnering with hospitals for pilot studies can help.

3.3 Impact on procurement

Procurements of technologies subject to New Methods must reflect the decision forum’s outcome. If a device has been approved for introduction, Sykehusinnkjøp can tender for it. If the technology is still under assessment, procurement may be delayed. Suppliers should monitor the New Methods pipeline and align tender timing accordingly. For technologies excluded from national funding, hospitals may still purchase them in research projects or private arrangements, but not within the standard reimbursement system.

4. Digital health and AI procurement

4.1 Digital infrastructure and strategy

Norway has invested heavily in e‑health. The government’s Digitalisation Strategy for the Health and Care Sector (2023‑2030) (not accessible in this environment but summarised in public sources) sets out a vision for one citizen – one record and a national digital health platform. The strategy emphasises interoperability, standardisation and patient control over health data. Regional health authorities implement large ICT programmes like Helseplattformen (an Epic‑based electronic health record platform for the central region) and Akershus University Hospital digital EHR. Hospitals also adopt digital pathology, remote monitoring and telemedicine solutions.

4.2 AI and ethical guidelines

The Joint AI Plan coordinated by the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Directorate of eHealth outlines ambitions for safe, ethical and effective use of AI in health. The plan calls for adopting commercial AI products, boosting competence and fostering public‑private partnerships. The Report on quality assurance: Use of AI in health and care services states that AI systems must be legal, ethical and robust. It identifies key risks such as black‑box opacity, bias in training data and hallucination. Organisations must perform risk analyses and document how they handle these issues before procuring AI. The report targets procurement of fully developed products and excludes in‑house development; it emphasises that generative models are a separate topic to be addressed in another project.

The report lists three components of trustworthy AI: legality (compliance with applicable laws), ethical compliance and technical/social robustness. It cites NIST’s characteristics of trustworthy AI: valid and reliable, safe, secure, resilient, accountable, transparent, explainable, privacy-enhanced and fair. These principles should inform procurement specifications. Contracting authorities may require suppliers to provide explainability documentation, algorithmic audits, bias mitigation plans and continuous monitoring of AI performance. Suppliers should also commit to data minimisation and privacy by design, and ensure that training data comply with GDPR and Norwegian health data regulations.

4.3 Privacy and data protection

Norway applies the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Personal Data Act. Health data are classified as sensitive personal data. The Health Personnel Act and the Patient Record Act impose strict confidentiality obligations on healthcare professionals and data processors. When procuring digital solutions, authorities must require suppliers to implement appropriate organisational and technical measures (encryption, access control, logging, pseudonymisation) and to enter into data processing agreements. Suppliers must perform privacy impact assessments and information security assessments. The AI quality assurance report stresses that AI models must be explainable to maintain patients’ right to understand how their data are processed.

For cross‑border data transfers, Norway relies on GDPR mechanisms such as adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules. Suppliers outside the EEA must demonstrate legal pathways for data transfer. Authorities may require data localization for critical health data.

4.4 Evidence for digital health and AI

Unlike drugs and high‑risk medical devices, digital health solutions often lack robust randomised evidence. Yet Norwegian authorities increasingly demand evidence of clinical effectiveness, cost‑effectiveness and user acceptance. Suppliers should provide results from pilot projects, observational studies or comparative analyses. They should also show alignment with Nye metoder if the technology triggers that framework. For AI, evidence must include model performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, calibration), fairness audits, user‑experience evaluations and demonstration of generalisability to Norwegian populations.

5. Sustainability, environment and social value

Norway is a leader in sustainable public procurement (SPP). A 2020 assessment of SPP found that centralised procurement bodies like Statens Innkjøpssenter and Sykehusinnkjøp integrate environmental and social considerations through risk assessments and award criteria. These bodies ask how best to incorporate sustainability into each product category; for example, they may require eco‑labels or award points for reduced carbon emissions. They follow up contract compliance on human rights and labour conditions using self‑assessment questionnaires. Risk assessments guide whether to emphasise environmental impact, human rights or both. In the health sector, Sykehusinnkjøp uses risk assessment to determine which sustainability considerations are appropriate for the procurement at hand.

However, the assessment also found that many smaller contracting authorities do not systematically conduct environmental or social impact analyses. Environmental weighting is often not applied despite legal requirements. Suppliers can differentiate themselves by presenting sustainability strategies and demonstrating compliance with ethical trade guidelines. They should be prepared for requirements on carbon footprint, recyclability, circular economy and responsible sourcing of raw materials. For example, Norwegian health authorities have joined the Circular and Fair ICT Pact and may require evidence of circularity for electronics.

6. Edge cases and challenges

6.1 Small and medium‑sized suppliers

Norway’s centralized and professionalised procurement system can be daunting for small enterprises, especially foreign start‑ups. Requirements for tax certificates, HSE documentation, quality certifications and Norwegian language translations create high entry barriers. The local language requirement and privacy regulations are cited as barriers to entry. The long timelines of New Methods (assessments lasting two or more years) may deter early‑stage innovators. However, early dialogue meetings and innovation partnerships offer opportunities for SMEs to shape tenders. SMEs should engage with the health trusts through clusters (e.g., Norsk e‑Helseklynge) and Innovation Norway to build consortia and pilot projects.

6.2 Rapid technology evolution

Digital health and AI evolve quickly, but Norwegian procurement emphasises thorough evaluation and system readiness. This tension means that promising technologies may be delayed; adoption may lag behind other countries. Suppliers must manage expectations and invest in building evidence and compliance capabilities early. On the other hand, technologies that address capacity shortages and align with Norway’s priorities (remote monitoring, telecare, interoperability) may be accelerated.

6.3 Data access and interoperability

Norway’s extensive health registries and Health Data Service facilitate research but access is tightly regulated. AI developers may struggle to obtain representative data for training and validation. Cross‑regional differences in electronic health records and integration challenges can hinder deployment. The digitalisation strategy aims for one national platform, but until then suppliers must ensure their solutions can integrate with multiple systems and follow national standards (e.g., HL7 FHIR). Interoperability is often a tender requirement.

6.4 Privacy and ethics controversies

Norwegian society is highly protective of privacy. The health directorate emphasises that AI must respect privacy and avoid bias. Public debate can delay projects; for example, use of AI scribing or predictive models may raise concerns about data misuse and algorithmic discrimination. Suppliers must be transparent, involve patient organisations and adhere to ethical guidelines. Under the new EU AI Act (adoption expected 2026), high‑risk health AI systems will require conformity assessments and post‑market monitoring; Norway, through its EEA obligations, will implement these rules.

6.5 Security and preparedness reform

A 2026 reform of the Public Procurement Act introduces a cross‑cutting consideration of security and preparedness (sikkerhet og beredskap) for public procurements. Contracting authorities must assess supply‑chain risks, control ownership of suppliers and ensure preparedness for emergencies. Although not yet implemented, this will likely affect health procurement by requiring security clearances for certain suppliers, restrictions on foreign ownership and obligations to maintain strategic reserves. Suppliers from outside the EEA should monitor these developments.

7. Best practices and actionable next steps

For suppliers

1. Understand the regulatory landscape. Familiarise yourself with the Public Procurement Act, the sector-specific rules, New Methods and the AI guidelines. Ensure your product has the necessary approvals (CE mark, medical device classification, privacy compliance) and evidence.
2. Engage early. Participate in dialogue meetings organised by Sykehusinnkjøp and the health trusts. Provide input during pipeline meetings. Early engagement helps shape specifications and signals your capability to meet requirements. Contact the National Programme for Supplier Development for guidance on innovation procurement.
3. Build partnerships. Collaborate with Norwegian hospitals, research institutions and clusters to conduct pilot studies and generate evidence. This helps you navigate New Methods and provides local references.
4. Prepare documentation. Assemble tax certificates, company registration documents, financial statements, quality certificates (ISO 13485), HSE policies, sustainability statements and data protection documents. Translate key documents into Norwegian.
5. Address AI risks. For AI solutions, conduct algorithmic audits, implement explainability methods, test for bias, implement privacy‑enhancing technologies, and plan for continuous monitoring. Document how you meet the trustworthy AI criteria (legal, ethical, robust).
6. Demonstrate sustainability. Present your product’s environmental footprint, circular economy strategies and social responsibility. Offer eco‑labels or equivalent proof. Use lifecycle costing to show long‑term value, not just purchase price.
7. Monitor tender platforms. Register on Ivalua and Doffin, set up alerts for relevant categories and track updates on New Methods decisions. Be aware of standstill periods and complaint deadlines.

For contracting authorities and policymakers

1. Strengthen capacity and guidance for municipalities. Provide templates, training and support on health procurement, including digital and AI procurement, to ensure smaller entities can use sustainability criteria and risk assessments.
2. Promote innovation partnerships and pre‑commercial procurement. Encourage health trusts to use innovative procedures that allow joint development of solutions, especially for digital health and AI. Provide funding for pilots and scale-up.
3. Enhance transparency and data sharing. Improve access to health data for evidence generation while maintaining privacy through secure data enclaves and anonymisation. Harmonise EHR systems to facilitate interoperability and reduce barriers for suppliers.
4. Integrate security and preparedness into procurement. Develop guidance on how to assess supply-chain risks and ownership in health procurements. Balance security considerations with competition and innovation.
5. Update evidence frameworks. Align New Methods with the forthcoming EU HTA regulation and AI Act, streamline assessment timelines, and provide clearer pathways for digital and AI technologies. Consider fast‑track mechanisms for low‑risk digital tools with strong user evidence.
6. Enforce sustainability and social criteria. Ensure environmental weighting of at least 30 % is consistently applied, and follow up on compliance in contract management. Publish success stories to inspire smaller entities.

For researchers and regulators

1. Generate Norwegian‑specific evidence. Conduct clinical studies and health economic evaluations of medtech and digital health solutions within Norway to inform New Methods and procurement decisions.
2. Develop AI evaluation frameworks. Create standardised methodologies for auditing AI models, assessing explainability and measuring fairness. Share these frameworks with suppliers and contracting authorities.
3. Investigate long‑term impacts of procurement policies. Study how sustainability criteria, innovation procurement and centralisation affect cost, quality and supplier diversity. Use findings to refine procurement strategy.

Conclusion

Health procurement in Norway is more than a transactional process; it is a strategic tool to ensure equitable access to safe, effective and sustainable healthcare. The system’s centralised structure (Sykehusinnkjøp and the RHAs) provides economies of scale and professional competence, while the Public Procurement Act offers transparent and fair procedures. Innovation is encouraged through market dialogues and innovation partnerships, yet adoption is carefully controlled via Nye metoder and evidence requirements. Digital health and AI procurements must navigate privacy, ethics and explainability concerns as defined by the national AI quality assurance report; suppliers must prepare to meet these requirements. Sustainability is increasingly integrated into procurement, with risk assessments guiding environmental and social criteria. The coming security and preparedness reforms will add another dimension.

For foreign suppliers, the key to success is preparation and partnership: understand the rules, engage early with stakeholders, build evidence, address privacy and sustainability, and adapt to Norway’s cautious yet innovation-friendly environment. For health authorities, balancing control and agility, strengthening capacity at municipal level, and harmonising data infrastructure will ensure that procurement continues to deliver value for patients and society.

References

• Health Industry White Paper – Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (2023). Section on public procurement emphasises that public procurement amounts to NOK 743 billion and that health services should use purchasing power wisely, guided by principles of competition and equal treatment. It also notes that Sykehusinnkjøp delivered 2,700 procurements worth NOK 71 billion in 2020–2022 and describes dialogue activities.
• U.S. Department of Commerce country guide. Notes that the four health regions own Sykehusinnkjøp, which managed 1,037 procurements worth USD 2.2 billion and 6,700 framework agreements in 2024. Highlights Norway’s roadmap focus areas and barriers to entry including local language and privacy. Explains that medical equipment must be registered with the Norwegian Directorate of Health and have CE marking.
• Guidance criteria for management of medical devices in Nye metoder (2018). States that manufacturers are responsible for conformity assessments and CE marking; the CE mark serves as evidence of compliance. Describes suitability assessment and level criteria for determining whether a device undergoes national or mini‑HTA.
• Odelle Technology article on Norway’s New Methods (2026). Explains that New Methods acts as a national gatekeeper, evaluating whether innovations should enter specialist care based on system consequences rather than local experimentation. Highlights that entry begins with a judgement call about whether national scrutiny is needed, that assessments consider economic and organisational impacts, and that completion of an assessment does not guarantee adoption.
• Norwegian Directorate of Health report on AI quality assurance (2024). States that AI systems must be legal, ethical and robust; highlights risks including black‑box opacity, bias and hallucination; and recommends risk analyses for procurement of AI systems. The report lists key components of trustworthy AI and clarifies that it covers procurement of fully developed products.
• Sustainable Public Procurement in Norway (2020). Notes that centralised procurement bodies like Sykehusinnkjøp use risk assessment to decide which sustainability considerations to integrate and that they employ environmental criteria and social responsibility requirements in award criteria. Observes that many smaller entities lack capacity to perform risk assessments and often under‑utilise environmental weighting.
• Sykehusinnkjøp HF new tender platform (2026). Announces that the trust transitioned from Mercell to Ivalua for tendering and contract management and provides details on supplier registration and the reasons for the change.
• Pharmaceutical strategy of Sykehusinnkjøp HF (2018). Highlights focus on adapting procurement methods to life‑cycle stages, responsible procurement with environmental and social requirements, and efficient implementation.