A published sample of what a buyer-map client receives. Government entities are named as on Etimad; winning companies are numbered by their value in the category (Supplier 1 is the largest) and are not named in the public sample.
Buyer Map: Operation and Maintenance (October 2025 – September 2026)
Summary in five lines
- The category declined less than the market: value fell −7.8% to SAR 18,300 million, against −11.4% for Etimad as a whole; award count fell −21.8% against −33.8%.
- The money is in large contracts: 390 awards above SAR 10 million carry 88.3% of the value, and public tenders alone account for 99.8%.
- Buyer spending has shifted: Taif Municipality, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah Municipality and Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University rose several-fold, while Riyadh Region Municipality fell 43%.
- Winning is dispersed: 897 winners, the ten largest take 36.6%, and 496 new winners took 28.8% of the value.
- Awards do not follow the lowest bid: only 36.8% of awards with two or more bids went at the lowest recorded bid, and 46% went 10% or more above it; the record does not show why.
Category size and trend
Reading: the contraction is larger in count than in value. Value lost about SAR 1,547 million (−7.8%), and count lost 451 awards (−21.8%). The record does not give the award size distribution for the previous period, so we cannot attribute the decline to one size band rather than another. What can be said is that Etimad as a whole contracted more than the category on both measures.
The record shows 1,619 awards worth SAR 18,300.3 million in the current period, against 2,070 awards worth SAR 19,847.4 million in the previous period. The difference is −7.8% in value and −21.8% in count. Across Etimad as a whole, the decline was −11.4% in value and −33.8% in count. The average award rose from SAR 9.6 million (19,847.4 ÷ 2,070) to SAR 11.3 million (18,300.3 ÷ 1,619).
Public tenders account for almost the entire category: 1,066 awards worth SAR 18,260.8 million, or 99.8% of the value. Direct purchasing accounts for 546 awards worth only SAR 30.6 million, and framework agreements for 7 awards worth SAR 8.9 million. The size distribution confirms the same picture: the median award is SAR 1.35 million, the top quartile is above SAR 9.5 million, and the top decile is above SAR 22.2 million. Awards of SAR 10 million or more number 390 (24% of awards) and carry 88.3% of the value.
The months show no fixed season. In the current period the peaks were October 2025 (SAR 2,210.8 million), September 2026 (2,092.7) and December 2025 (2,062.6), and October–December together totalled SAR 5,696.1 million, or 31.1% of the value. In the previous period, however, the same months totalled SAR 4,747.2 million, only 23.9%, and the two peaks were March 2025 (2,913.6) and June 2025 (2,001.1). The low point in the current period was July 2026: 79 awards worth SAR 1,034.9 million. What holds across both periods is that no month fell below roughly SAR 1,000 million; the flow is continuous, and the timing of peaks changes from year to year.
Geographically, Riyadh accounts for SAR 5,891.6 million (32.2%), Makkah for 4,929.3 (26.9%) and the Eastern Province for 2,197.6 (12.0%); three regions carry 71.1%. Makkah has more awards (447 against 368 for Riyadh) but lower value.
What the record does not say: the final month is incomplete; awards from 7–27 September appeared with a median lag of 5 days and 90% within 16 days, so the September 2026 figure is likely to rise. Nor does the record say whether the fall in count reflects postponement, cancellation or the bundling of smaller contracts into larger ones. It also covers only two years, and two years are not enough to judge seasonality.
Who buys
| Entity | Value (million) | Awards | Change | Median bidders | Top supplier share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taif Municipality | 1,115.6 | 18 | +389% | 14 | 84% (Supplier 1) |
| Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs | 873.2 | 17 | +256% | 6.5 | 86% (Supplier 2) |
| Jeddah Municipality | 742.0 | 5 | +399% | 7 | 55% (Supplier 3) |
| Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University | 654.5 | 8 | ×13.7 | 10.5 | 89% (Supplier 4) |
| General Directorate of the Jubail Project | 598.9 | 8 | +93% | 13 | 79% (Supplier 6) |
| Riyadh Region Municipality | 570.1 | 31 | −43% | 11 | 42% (Supplier 14) |
| General Directorate of Prisons | 535.4 | 23 | +341% | 13 | 20% (Supplier 10) |
| Makkah Health Cluster | 501.8 | 6 | +45% | 13.5 | 51% (Supplier 13) |
| Saudi Irrigation Organization | 498.8 | 33 | +20% | 9 | 30% (Supplier 3) |
| Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Dawah and Guidance | 472.8 | 47 | +2% | 23 | 21% (Supplier 24) |
| Royal Guard Presidency | 470.9 | 6 | +199% | 14.5 | 40% (Supplier 5) |
| Madinah Region Municipality | 427.4 | 18 | +156% | 11 | 39% (Supplier 20) |
Change is calculated from each entity's value in the previous period. Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University rose from SAR 47.9 million to SAR 654.5 million.
Reading: spending by the largest buyers changed considerably from the previous period. Seven of the twelve doubled their spending or more (Taif, National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Imam University, Prisons, Royal Guard, Madinah), Jubail nearly doubled (+93%), and one entity (Riyadh Region Municipality) lost SAR 426.5 million. The record shows that the ten largest entities take 35.9% of the value, and the twelve take 40.8% (7,461.4 ÷ 18,300.3); in other words, six of every ten riyals are spread across 239 other entities.
Most of the entities with large jumps made them through one contract or a few: Jeddah with 5 awards to two winners; Imam University with 8 awards, one of which carries SAR 583.8 million of the 654.5 (89%); Taibah University with two awards worth SAR 412.2 million, from zero; Taif Health Cluster with a single award worth SAR 229.7 million. The contract titles at Imam University, Taibah and Taif Health Cluster are for operation, maintenance and cleaning of entire facilities. If these are multi-year contracts, they will not recur every year; but the record does not show contract duration, so this is a possibility rather than a measurement. By contrast, entities with high award counts (Saudi Water Authority with 116 awards worth SAR 304.5 million, Islamic Affairs 47, Irrigation 33, Riyadh Region Municipality 31) issue dozens of awards a year, so the opportunities there are multiple rather than single.
The summary across all entities adds what the table does not show. Of 251 entities, 232 issued public tenders, 173 of these had a median of 7 or more bidders, and only 7 had a median of 2 or fewer. Weak competition is the exception, not the rule. On the other hand, at 191 entities more than half of spending went to a single supplier, and these entities carry 61.4% of the category's value. This indicator is met automatically at any entity with one or two awards, and the record does not link the two indicators at the level of the same entities, so it cannot be taken as evidence of narrow competition at each of them. The table is more precise: Taif and Imam University receive many bids (medians of 14 and 10.5) yet place most of their money with a single winner; National Guard Health Affairs places 86% with one winner with a median of 6.5 bidders, below the category median; and Islamic Affairs is the counter-example: a median of 23 bidders, 19 winners, and the largest taking only 21%.
What the record does not say: it does not show contract duration, so we do not know which jumps recur after one year and which after five. Nor does it show whether Saudi Water Authority's awards (median of 3 bidders) are narrow because few bidders are qualified or because the contracts are small.
Who wins
| Supplier | Value (million) | Awards | Entities | Change | Listed | Median award (million) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier 1 | 1,900.4 | 12 | 8 | +164% | Not listed | 136.4 |
| Supplier 2 | 1,168.2 | 4 | 3 | ×7.4 | Not listed | 227.6 |
| Supplier 3 | 596.0 | 9 | 3 | +449% | Listed | 36.8 |
| Supplier 4 | 583.8 | 1 | 1 | New | Not listed | 583.8 |
| Supplier 5 | 502.3 | 10 | 7 | −9% | Not listed | 30.9 |
| Supplier 6 | 470.2 | 1 | 1 | New | Listed | 470.2 |
| Supplier 7 | 448.4 | 5 | 2 | New | Not listed | 49.4 |
| Supplier 8 | 384.9 | 8 | 7 | +67% | Not listed | 47.2 |
| Supplier 9 | 326.8 | 5 | 4 | +31% | Not listed | 30.9 |
| Supplier 10 | 314.9 | 4 | 3 | ×6.4 | Not listed | 86.4 |
| Supplier 11 | 310.2 | 7 | 6 | ×9.5 | Not listed | 35.0 |
| Supplier 12 | 294.2 | 3 | 3 | +1% | Not listed | 68.9 |
"New" means the supplier had no award in the category in the previous period.
Reading: no supplier dominates the category. The largest supplier takes 10.4%, the top five 26.0%, the top ten 36.6%, and the concentration index is 232 (low). Of 897 winners, only 16 are listed on the Saudi Exchange, with a share of 9.4%; nine of every ten riyals go to unlisted companies. The record does not hold company size or age, so we say no more than this.
Supplier 1's rise is geographically concentrated: its four largest contracts in the list of top awards are three waste contracts for Taif Municipality (277.6 + 229.6 + 223.7 = SAR 730.9 million) and the Taif Health Cluster contract (229.7), i.e. SAR 960.6 million of 1,900.4 (50.5%) from two entities in Taif; and its share at Taif Municipality alone is 84% of SAR 1,115.6 million, so what it takes from the city is greater than these four contracts. Supplier 2 took 93.6% of its value from two contracts: National Guard Health Affairs (693.6) and Taibah University (399.3). Supplier 5 is the only one of the top ten to decline, yet it still has 10 awards across 7 entities; it is most likely a breadth model rather than a single-deal one, the opposite of Suppliers 4 and 6.
New entrants: 496 winners had no award in the previous period; they make up 55.3% of winners and took 689 awards and 28.8% of the value. Their median award is SAR 0.63 million against SAR 1.35 million for all winners, but 120 of their awards are above SAR 10 million. Three of the seven largest suppliers (4, 6 and 7) are new, with SAR 1,502.4 million combined. This suggests that entry is possible from the top, not only from the bottom, with an important caveat: the record does not merge affiliated or similar registrations, so some "new" winners may be established firms trading under another name.
What the record does not say: it does not show who submitted the losing bids, so we do not know who competed against Supplier 1 in Taif or by what margin.
How competitions are decided
Reading: the award value did not equal the lowest recorded bid in 63.2% of awards with two or more bids, and exceeded it by 10% or more in 46.0% of them. Why? The record does not answer; it may be technical evaluation, disqualification or negotiation. What is measured is the difference in value, not its cause nor who submitted the bid.
The record shows that the median number of bidders in public tenders is 10, up from 8 in the previous period. 720 of 1,066 public awards attracted 7 or more bidders, and these carry SAR 16,174.9 million, or 88.6% of public tender value. Awards with a single bidder number only 12, worth SAR 73 million. The largest contracts vary: the largest contract in the category (National Guard Health Affairs, SAR 693.6 million) attracted 9 bidders, the Imam University contract (583.8) 18, and the Taibah University contract (399.3) 43. This shows that most of the money passes through crowded tenders, and that crowding on a given contract cannot be inferred from its size.
Comparing award value with the lowest recorded bid across 1,051 awards with two or more bids: 36.8% went at the lowest bid, and 46.0% went 10% or more above it. The median spread between the highest and lowest bid is 132.4%; that is, in a typical tender the highest bid is more than double the lowest. Most likely, pricing in the category is very widely dispersed, and entities frequently award above the lowest recorded bid. The record does not show who submitted the lowest bid, nor whether it was acceptable in the first place.
Time from tender issue to award: the median for public tenders is 134 days, and the slowest decile exceeds 292 days. Direct purchasing has a median of 64 days, with the slowest decile at 247. This period is measured from the tender issue date, not from bid submission, so the time a bid itself is held open is shorter by the preparation period. The record does not measure the cost of this holding period.
Continuity: 172 entities bought in both periods, and 25.8% of the value and 31.3% of the count of their awards went to a supplier that had previously won with them. In other words, three-quarters of the money at repeat buyers went to a supplier that had not won with them in the previous year. Because winner names are not merged across similar registrations, the share may understate reality.
What the record does not say: the estimated cost is not published on Etimad, so award against estimate cannot be measured, nor can we tell whether the lowest bid was "unacceptable" on price.
What this means for bidders
- Target awards of SAR 10 million or more, or accept a market worth 11.7% of the value. 390 awards carry 88.3%. Measure it against your own position: the share of your bids submitted above SAR 10 million in the last 12 months.
- Do not build your schedule around a fixed season. This period's peaks were October, September and December; the previous period's were March and June; and what held across both periods is that no month fell below roughly SAR 1,000 million. Ask your team: is bid-preparation capacity spread across the year or concentrated in particular months?
- Distinguish between one-deal clients and repeat clients. Imam University, Taibah and Taif Health Cluster jumped on one or two large contracts, and Jeddah on five awards to two winners; Saudi Water Authority, Islamic Affairs, Irrigation and Prisons issue dozens. Check your records: the number of entities you have bid to more than once this year.
- Do not rely on lowest price alone. Of 1,051 public tender awards with two or more bids, 63.2% were not awarded at the lowest recorded bid, and the median spread between bids is 132.4%; the record does not show why. Review your lost bids: how often were you the lowest price and did not win, and what reason was recorded in the award minutes or in the entity's response?
- Enter entities whose spending is distributed. Islamic Affairs (largest supplier 21%), Prisons (20%) and Irrigation (30%) are less concentrated than Taif (84%), National Guard Health Affairs (86%) and Imam University (89%). Compare with your list: the largest supplier's share at each entity you target, and rank the list by it.
- Plan on 134 days from tender issue to award, and provide for 292. Test it internally: how many bid bonds do you currently have outstanding, and what is their expected duration?
Method and limitations
Measurement is from the Etimad award record, extract of 30 October 2026, for the activity "Operation and Maintenance" within "Operation, Maintenance and Cleaning of Facilities". The current period is 1 October 2025 – 30 September 2026, and the previous period is the twelve months before it. Values are in riyals including VAT as published. Percentage changes are calculated as the difference over the previous period's value; shares are calculated on SAR 18,300.3 million for the category or 18,260.8 for public tenders, depending on context. Median bidders and the lowest-bid measure relate to public tenders only.
Limitations: (1) The activity is the tender's activity on Etimad, so the school transport contract for the Jubail Project (SAR 470.2 million) is counted in the category because it was classified there. (2) Winner names are not merged across affiliated companies or similar registrations, so concentration figures are a lower bound and "new" figures an upper bound. (3) The final month is still being completed. (4) Etimad does not publish the estimated cost, so award against estimate is not measured. (5) Awards above the lowest bid are measured on the recorded value only; the record does not show the reason for the difference or who submitted the lowest bid. (6) 26 awards worth SAR 208.9 million have no specified region. (7) Supplier names are masked in the sample and numbered in order of current-period value. (8) The record does not hold the award size distribution for the previous period, its buyer ranking or contract durations, so changes are not attributed to a size band and entities' return is not forecast.