Head of the ARMA Duma makes excuses in advance for criticizing the tender for the manager of the Gulliver shopping center

The head of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, Olena Duma, said that she had received a report on the valuation of the Gulliver shopping center in Kyiv, with the value of the property at UAH 7.6 billion. However, she immediately announced "expected custom information campaigns" regarding the tender for the manager of this asset, which looks like an attempt to cover up dubious or non-transparent actions, UNN writes.

Details

On Friday, Elena Duma saidthat the appraiser, Business Consulting PE, provided the Agency with an official report on October 9 on the valuation of the Gulliver shopping center. According to the assessment, the value of this asset is UAH 7.6 billion.

According to her, after processing and consolidating all the information and preparing tender documents, ARMA will announce a tender to select a manager for the mall.

However, at the same time, the Head of the ARMA emphasized the "expected paid information campaigns.

"We are already expecting to see more paid information campaigns ordered by those who do not benefit from the state's management of this high-profile asset. Good luck," emphasized Olena Duma.

Such statements by the Head of the ARMA look like a pre-prepared move to justify any criticism and to avoid answering reasonable questions about the transparency of tenders. After all, similar statements were already made by Olena Duma when she tried to justify the failure to sell the yacht of the traitorous ex-MP Viktor Medvedchuk. At that time, she complained about мedvedchuk's "resistance" that prevented ARMA from selling his asset.

In the case of the appraiser of the Gulliver shopping center, the public has already raised several questions that have not been answered. In particular, what criteria were used by ARMA to select Business Consulting as the winner and what remuneration the company will receive for its work. After all, apart from Olena Duma's statements that the competition was "transparent," no information about it can be found.

As you know, the ARMA officers were not able to conduct a full inspection of the entire Gulliver shopping mall and business center. After all, after the performance with the cover numbers, the "mom's agents" were still forced to act in accordance with the law. Accordingly, if a full inspection of the asset has not been carried out, how can its value be objectively assessed?

Thus, it seems that the ARMA leadership is trying to get ahead of the criticism by covering up possible dubious actions with pre-prepared accusations of "paid-for campaigns." But can this strategy remove the suspicions of the public and experts about potential abuses in key tenders? There is no answer yet, but the transparency of such processes remains a big question mark.