A little earlier, the IS Group's Investigative Journalism Service published an article titled "Entertaining Tendering: New Times, Old Schemes." It explored the intricacies of tenders for food supplies for the Ukrainian Armed Forces—both for regular units and for soldiers in the ATO zone.
Specifically, the article stated that one of the firms vying for government contracts in this area had been cooperating with the Ministry of Defense since the previous administration. Previously, information had been disseminated, citing the Ministry of Defense, that one of these companies, Avika LLC, was using specific methods to maintain its position and was allegedly artificially delaying the start of tender procedures, demanding clarifications regarding tender legislation from the Ministry of Defense's Public Procurement Department.
One method was submitting requests for clarification at the end of the week, which, according to information from the other side of the conflict—the ministry—was what was causing the bidding process to drag on. The goal of this sabotage was to potentially extend contracts without compromise—after all, the soldiers couldn't afford to sit around hungry until those involved sorted out the tenders and contracts.
It's worth noting that our article resonated – the company in question sent us a letter with clarification. According to company representatives, they did, indeed, demand clarification. "Clearly defined qualification requirements would enable us to accurately and adequately assess the technical ability of participants to provide such services. On the other hand, they would allow all potential participants to adequately calculate their price proposals," stated Avika's response to the article following our journalistic investigation. Indeed, what better way to understand the rules of the game than to, on the one hand, understand whether it makes sense for a company to compete for government contracts, and on the other, to clearly communicate its capabilities to Ministry officials.
Regarding the deadlines for submitting requests for clarification of legislation, the company denies that by submitting requests for clarification of tender legislation nuances, they were attempting to delay the start of the bidding process. As Svetlana Larina, director of Avika LLC, told the IS group, they collaborated with Diana Petrenya, a representative of the State Procurement Department of the Ministry of Education and Science. Larina claims that it was she who requested that one of the clauses be added to the request, arguing that this was the reason the document arrived on Friday, not Wednesday, when Avika initially attempted to include it. Indeed, the request (the IS editorial team has a copy of the document) is dated February 6, which was indeed a Friday.
We wondered what the Ministry of Defense would say. "They're shamelessly lying," Nelly Stelmakh, head of the Ministry of Defense's Competitive Bidding Committee, said emotionally. Her colleague, Diana Petrenya, tried to clarify the situation. According to volunteers currently working at the Ministry of Defense, Avika has submitted three requests for clarification of tender legislation, the first two on Friday.
The document mentioned above was indeed prepared on Wednesday, and the Ministry of Education and Science staff did indeed ask the company to add one more detail to the request. As Petrenya explained, other potential bidders had also inquired about it, but only in person. Since the Ministry of Education and Science wanted to officially publish clarifications on this matter in the "Government Procurement Bulletin," they needed an official request. Therefore, Diana Petrenya says, they asked Avika to include a question on this point in the request.
This concerns the requirement for bidders to prove their financial solvency (as we were told, so the Ministry can ensure the company has all the resources to fulfill the terms of the future contract). The regulation requires the provision of a certificate proving the availability of funds in a current account of between 10 and 35 million hryvnias or a credit line for the same amount (which, incidentally, Avika considers an unreasonable requirement).
In short, it’s not yet entirely clear who’s being disingenuous here…
Meanwhile, the auction did take place—via a negotiated process—on March 16-17. As Avika noted, "for the lot we bid for (in the Kharkiv, Poltava, Sumy, and Luhansk regions), we had only one competitor, who offered a higher final price than our company."
Another issue remains unresolved: in our previous article, we wrote about the energy situation, which involved possible misuse of nearly 2 million hryvnias. As a reminder, this was in response to the findings of regulatory authorities, who noted that the Ministry of Defense overpaid the company for energy used to provide meals to military personnel.
We'll return to this issue again—let the competent authorities have their say. A corresponding request to clarify all the circumstances has already been submitted.
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!