Primotec: Defense Tender Economics and Whether Visibility Really Improved
Primotec's Ministry of Defense tender wins and extensions improved framework continuity, but they did not create hard backlog. With 35.8% of 2025 revenue still tied to the Ministry of Defense, the real question is not just whether a contract exists, but whether the tender structure actually makes future volume and margin more visible.
Visibility Improved, But Mostly at the Framework Level
The main article argued that without the exceptional IDF tailwind, Primotec's institutional core now has to prove it can hold profitability under more normal conditions. This continuation isolates only that question: did the Ministry of Defense tender wins and extensions really improve visibility, or did they mainly create a more comfortable feeling around the same still-flexible economics?
The short answer is yes, visibility improved, but not in the sense of hard backlog. It improved because Primotec is not entering 2026 against an expired framework that needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Instead, it enters the year with two active Ministry of Defense supply tracks. In cleaning and hygiene products, the current engagement was extended through April 30, 2026, and in December 2025 the company also received notice that it had won a new tender, subject to signing a binding budgeted price agreement. In disposables, the option was already exercised in May 2025 and the engagement was extended through December 11, 2028. That improves continuity. It still does not guarantee volume.
That question remains thesis-critical because the Ministry of Defense is nowhere near a secondary customer. In 2025 revenue from that customer was ILS 97.9 million, down 16.4% versus 2024, but still 35.8% of company revenue and 39.4% of institutional-segment revenue. In the segment note it remains the group's only major customer. So the debate is not whether concentration exists. It does. The real issue is what kind of visibility that concentration provides: visibility backed by quantities and backlog, or visibility backed mainly by the continued existence of a framework agreement.
What the Two Defense Tenders Actually Provide
If one reads only the headline, it is easy to think the December 2025 tender win solved the visibility issue. The full package is more precise, and much more important.
| Track | Status at the reporting date | What it does provide | What it does not provide | Key economic mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning and hygiene products | Price agreements extending the current engagement through April 30, 2026, plus a December 2025 notice of winning a new tender, subject to a binding budgeted price agreement | A new framework that can run for up to 36 months from the signing of the price agreement, with options for up to 24 additional months | No commitment to orders of any specific volume or timing, and the Ministry of Defense may cancel unused order balances | Price updates once every 12 months, 50% linked to the dollar or euro and 50% to CPI; the new tender also includes delay and emergency-stock compensation mechanisms |
| Disposables | A March 28, 2024 price agreement whose option was exercised in May 2025, extending the engagement through December 11, 2028 | A longer framework that has already been extended in practice | No minimum quantity and no binding ordering schedule, and the Ministry of Defense may cancel unused order balances | Price updates every 6 months, 70% linked to wholesale plastic prices and 30% to CPI; delivery delays trigger compensation |
This is exactly why visibility did improve. The risk of an immediate contractual cliff is lower. The company says it has worked with the Ministry of Defense for more than two decades, and explicitly frames option exercises and extensions as evidence of satisfaction with its performance. In that sense, any claim that visibility did not improve at all would miss the fact that this relationship keeps rolling through multiple procurement frameworks rather than breaking between one year and the next.
But that improvement still needs to be read correctly. In these tenders the company is not really selling a three-year contract in the way one would describe a project backlog or a software commitment. It is holding a framework that allows orders to be placed. That matters, but it is a different product altogether.
The mix also shifted. In 2025 cleaning and hygiene products already accounted for 58.6% of Ministry of Defense revenue, up from 55.8% in 2024 and 46.6% in 2023. Disposables fell in parallel to 41.4%. That does not tell us the margin of each tender track, because the company does not disclose that. It does tell us that the economic question for 2026 leans more than before toward the track where Primotec now also has a fresh win, but still not committed volume.
Why This Is Still Not Backlog
The most important sentence in this whole discussion actually appears in the section describing how the company contracts with customers. Primotec states explicitly that under its framework agreements it generally is not committed in advance to supply products in a minimum volume, and that the orders themselves are placed through separate order forms at whatever timing and volume the customer chooses. It also says the customer may cancel the unused balance of an order. That is true for framework agreements in general, and in the major-customer section it is stated explicitly for the Ministry of Defense as well.
That is where the gap between better visibility and backlog begins. A better framework means the company does not need to go through a fresh access test with the customer and that the contractual operating environment continues. It does not mean the purchase volume is already locked. Anyone translating the tender win or the option extension directly into multi-year backlog is reading a procurement framework as if it were a projects book.
The cleanest proof sits in the backlog section. The company writes that apart from the Shinson activity it does not have a known material backlog in advance, and at December 31, 2025 the entire reported backlog stood at only ILS 18.2 million. More than that, the main products inside that backlog are described as hygiene-space furnishing products marketed by Shinson, mainly to industrial and commercial customers. In other words, even in the report published after the new tender win, the Ministry of Defense does not become backlog. It remains a very large framework customer.
This also explains why the company describes 2025 as a return of IDF orders to a normal level rather than as a loss-of-contract event. The company remained inside the framework, but the actual volume changed as wartime intensity fell. That is a very important distinction. The framework is more durable than the exceptional demand spike.
Where the Real Economics Sit
This is the part that matters most and is easiest to miss. The tenders do include indexation mechanisms, so this is not a crude fixed-price exposure. In cleaning and hygiene the update is annual, half linked to FX and half to CPI. In disposables the update is every six months, 70% linked to wholesale plastic prices and 30% to CPI. A superficial read could stop there and conclude that the economic risk has eased because the pricing framework is indexed.
But 2025 itself already shows why that is not enough. The company says institutional-segment revenue fell by about 10%, mainly because of lower IDF orders, and that both operating profit and operating margin in that segment also fell materially because of the lower revenue and because of adverse changes in sales margins, influenced by customer mix and stabilized procurement prices. In other words, even with framework agreements and indexation, the real economics still depend on order mix and on the margin that emerges across the basket.
This is not just a generic statement. In the segment note, institutional revenue fell to ILS 248.8 million from ILS 276.2 million, down 9.9%. Segment profit fell to ILS 32.1 million from ILS 44.8 million, down 28.5%. The segment operating margin fell to 12.9% from 16.2%. That means the drop in volume was not the entire story. The quality of the volume that remained was less favorable as well.
The non-obvious point is that the company also does not manage institutional profitability at the level of each item. It says explicitly that in the institutional segment its pricing policy is to set a profitability threshold for the full basket sold to the customer, and not to track the profitability of each individual product separately. That changes the reading of the tenders completely. It means Ministry of Defense economics do not sit only inside the tender price list. They sit in the actual mix of orders, in the breadth of the basket, in service conditions, and in what other customers sit beside it inside the institutional mix.
That is also why the fact that the institutional channel enjoyed a higher average gross margin than retail in 2023 through 2025, about 38.6% versus 35.4%, does not settle the question. The institutional channel can still be the better economic channel, and 2025 can still show how sensitive the realized margin remains to volume and mix.
Bottom Line
Primotec's visibility with the Ministry of Defense really did improve, but the more precise wording is that it replaced renewal risk with utilization risk. The disposables track already runs through December 2028, the cleaning and hygiene track now also has a fresh tender win behind it, and the company remains a long-standing supplier with a deep relationship with the customer. That is the positive side of the story.
The less comfortable side is that this framework still does not translate into committed backlog. There is no minimum quantity, no hard ordering schedule, the customer may cancel unused balances, and the company's reported backlog sits mainly elsewhere. So the key question for 2026 is not whether an agreement exists. It is whether the actual order pace stabilizes at a healthy level, and whether the institutional segment can stop the margin erosion that showed up in 2025.
That is exactly where the tender analysis should stop, not at a victory headline and not at a simplistic fear of losing the customer, but at the real economics of a framework without guaranteed volume.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.