Expert: It is necessary to regulate the issue by law so that firms that have previously disrupted tenders of the Ministry of Defense do not participate in them
Kyiv • UNN
The security expert believes that the participation of dubious companies in tenders for the supply of food and other goods for the Armed Forces should be excluded at the legislative level to prevent disruption of supplies.
It is necessary to exclude the participation of dubious companies in tenders for the supply of food and other goods for the Armed Forces at the legislative level. This opinion was voiced by security expert Serhiy Shabovta in an exclusive commentary to UNN.
Details
According to him, this is a well-established scheme when a group of dubiously related companies takes part in a tender and uses any means to win it. In particular, through lawsuits.
"When I hear about companies that disrupt tenders, I am very familiar with this practice. If you ask people from any segment of the economy who have been careless enough to enter tenders, they will all tell you about such companies. In each segment, these are well-known players.
As a rule, these are groups of companies, not single companies, that professionally squeeze all other participants out of the tender. But when they can't win the tender, they start suing, filing complaints, etc. It's a well-established practice," said Shabovta.
He added that the exclusion of dishonest companies from the Defense Ministry's tenders should be regulated at the legislative level.
"Who should prevent this? Of course, the Ministry (of Defense - ed.). The Cabinet of Ministers should initiate additional regulation. We also have the State Regulatory Service.
As for not participating in tenders by companies that often disrupt them, this should be regulated by law," the expert concluded.
Context
The panel of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, following a lawsuit filed by Trade Granit Invest, canceled the condition prohibiting the participation in tenders of suppliers who failed to fulfill their obligations to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in 2022-2023.
Because of this, the State Logistics Operator was forced to cancel 11 tenders.
The company Trade Granite Invest is most likely involved in a powerful information attack on the new team of the Defense Ministry and the DOT, which could be led by traitor to Ukraine Viktor Medvedchuk.
In the comments of UNN, experts called the court's decision sabotage and activities in favor of Russia that may have signs of treason.
In particular, military expert Dmytro Snegiryov believes that the SBU should be interested in the decision and the judges who made it.
"It seems that this is some kind of work in favor of Russia. Thus, in fact, Russia, using loopholes in Ukrainian legislation, is trying to block material and technical procurement of the Ministry of Defense. There should be an immediate reaction from law enforcement agencies, primarily the SBU, to check such decisions. This is not the first time that tenders have been canceled or blocked. And this is not normal. Indeed, there is a tendency to challenge these tenders, effectively blocking their implementation. And this applies not only to food procurement, but also to other important things provided by the Ministry of Defense. The situation is paradoxical and outrageous," said Snegiryov.
In turn, political scientist Viktor Bobyrenko believes that it is necessary to enshrine in law a ban on companies that have already disrupted supplies to participate in tenders for food for the Armed Forces.
"There is a danger that the process of organizing meals in the army will be jeopardized. If this cannot be resolved through the courts, then the legislation needs to be changed. I think it should be done not at the level of tender conditions, but at the level of the law, so that the court can unambiguously interpret these provisions of the law: if the supply is disrupted once, it is forbidden to participate in new tenders. In particular, a law on the specifics of procurement in wartime should be adopted. We are all in favor of maintaining the procedures, but on the other hand, we want it not to stymie supplies to the military. Because once again, it can be either unfair competition or an enemy whose goal is not to make money but to disrupt supplies," said Viktor Bobyrenko.
