ARMA's double standards: investigating tender anomalies

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency, which is supposed to effectively manage seized property to preserve or increase its economic value, is increasingly at the center of scandals. In particular, ARMA has been drawing attention to its activities due to questionable tender procedures. Are the rules of the game really the same for everyone? UNN analyzed three high-profile cases and found out interesting details.

Amazing speed on the railroad

The first example concerns the procurement of services for the management of 434 railroad cars, where the winner was LLC “Financial and Industrial Company ‘Resursgroup’. Although ARMA started looking for a manager for this property only after the scandal, everything seems to be transparent: the tender, the qualification criteria, the winner. However, a careful analysis of the tender documents suggests that the tender conditions were formed exclusively to meet the criteria of a particular company.

One of the most interesting criteria in this contract is experience. According to the terms, contracts were considered “similar” even if the company only ordered transportation services for its own needs. 

"Similar contracts (experience) should be understood as договори contracts for transportation and organization of transportation of their own goods by rail (in wagons), including with the involvement of third parties (carriers, freight forwarders)," the tender documentation says.

That is, according to ARMA's logic, if a participant in the procedure has ever ordered transportation services for its own needs (not the provision of services, but the receipt of services), it automatically has experience in fulfilling similar contracts. 

Imagine you've ordered a taxi and you can already claim the status of a transportation manager.

If someone says that this is not possible, it is possible to analyze the contracts that the participant provided to confirm the experience. Namely, all contracts that were provided indicate that LLC "financial and industrial RMA company "RESURSGROUP" acted only as a customer of services.

The most intriguing detail is that the winner's package of documents was fully prepared the day after the competition was announced. Whether this is just a miracle of professionalism or whether the documents were prepared in advance remains an open question.

Bulk carriers and the “universal” winner

The second case is the procurement of management services for the dry cargo vessel EMMAKRIS III and nine other vessels . The winner was Marinex PE, which also came into focus due to the atypical conditions of the tender.

The tender documents did not require the participants to have any material and technical facilities. Moreover, the qualification criteria were limited to having a management degree, and some employees of the winning company were hired after the tender was announced.

Whether this is transparency or “victory by default” remains an unanswered question.

Gulliver shopping center: when requirements work against everyone

Another example is the tender for the management of the Gulliver shopping center in Kyiv. Here, the ARMA set impressive requirements for participants. A company that wants to manage the mall must have non-residential real estate of at least 35,000 square meters and land plots worth at least UAH 100 million. These conditions immediately excluded most potential participants.

However, several questions arise: why are logistics not required in some tenders, while in others they become a key requirement? When one of the companies asked about the validity of these conditions, the answer was succinct: the requirements are defined because they are “appropriate.

instead of conclusions

The ARMA positions itself as the vanguard of the fight against corruption, but an analysis of the agency's tenders makes one wonder whether it is really an organization with equal rules for all. Suspicions of manipulation and double standards cast a shadow over the activities of ARMA and its head, Olena Duma.

Add

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition to select a manager for the Gulliver shopping center. The head of the agency, Olena Duma, proudly stated that she had taken the strictest possible approach to the selection of a manager for this high-profile asset and even set the maximum possible 4 criteria for candidates. 

The building of the Gulliver shopping center is pledged as collateral for a mortgage loan with state-owned banks, including Oschadbank. However, among the criteria set out by the ARMA, there is no mention of the need to repay the loan. 

Oshchadbank has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer Gulliver to ARMA harms the interests of the state-owned bank, as it will deprive it of loan payments from the company that owns the capital's complex . The losses of Oschadbank due to the termination of loan payments could reach more than UAH 20 billion.

After the announcement of the tender, Arsen Miliutin, deputy chairman of the board of Oschadbank in charge of NPLs, said in a commentary to UNN that the state-owned bank plans to recover the building of the capital's Gulliver shopping center in its favor if ARMA transfers it to management. He expressed indignation that instead of paying the loan to state banks, Gulliver's earnings would be given to an “incomprehensible manager”.