Delay in the weapons procurement process: expert points to a systemic problem in the organization of tenders 17 August 2026
Kyiv • UNN
Military expert Yevhenii Silverstov said that the Armed Forces lack a requirements management system, which is slowing down defense procurement. This has led to delays in transmitting tactical and technical specifications to the Defense Procurement Agency.
The Armed Forces effectively lack a requirements management system—that is, a system for studying needs and converting them into requirements for the procurement item. This view was expressed by serviceman and defense procurement expert Yevhenii Silverstov, reports UNN.
In the expert’s view, it is precisely the absence of such a system that is causing the slowdown in defense procurement announced by domestic arms manufacturers.
Context
Industry associations and their representatives issued statements late last week warning of possible disruptions in the supply of weapons to the front. They were referring to the slowdown of competitive tender procedures. This is a new form of weapons procurement, the transition to which was announced more than five months ago.
Under this procedure, the centers of competence established at the Ministry of Defense were supposed to provide the Defense Procurement Agency with the tactical and technical characteristics of products in various areas, after which the Agency was to conduct tender procurements based on those specifications. It turned out that over the course of five months, the DPA received an extremely limited number of the documents required to announce the tenders.
As explained by Ihor Fedirko, executive director of the Ukrainian Council of Arms Manufacturers, this situation will cause a disruption in the supply of weapons to the front, and within six months the military will feel a shortage of weapons, even if all tenders are launched as quickly as possible.
"The price of this pause is weapons that the front may not receive," Fedirko believes.
Later, Fedirko reported that a meeting on this issue had taken place at the Ministry of Defense with the participation of arms manufacturers.
"According to the information announced at the meeting, the vast majority of the tactical and technical characteristics that the market had been waiting for months were approved literally yesterday evening and this morning and forwarded for the launch of procurement. Some contracts that had been awaiting signature for a long time also suddenly began moving forward," Fedirko reported.
As the URM executive director explained, the delay was caused, among other things, by the lack of proper synchronization between the parties involved, since the General Staff develops the tactical and technical characteristics and then forwards these documents to the Ministry of Defense.
According to him, most of the finalized tactical and technical characteristics have already reached the Ministry of Defense and were forwarded to the DPA.
"I hope that this time the path from ‘forwarded’ to ‘received’ will not take several more weeks," he added.
Fedirko also said that, in order not to halt contracting, the Ministry is currently seeking reserves, reallocating available resources, and directing part of the funds toward direct procurements where possible. Some contracts have already been signed or are at the final approval stage.
"This is a necessary temporary solution. During an active war, it is impossible to first halt the old mechanism and then spend months launching a new one," Fedirko stressed.
Why the essence of the problem is deeper
Yevhenii Silverstov believes that the problem that has now surfaced in the form of a risk of procurement being halted has existed for a long time.
"A procurement officer is an executor of an order. For that person to conduct a competitive procurement, someone must first do the difficult work of understanding exactly what the military needs and converting that need into proper requirements for the procurement item," the expert believes.
Moreover, as Silverstov emphasizes, the requirements must be specific enough to achieve the desired result, but not so "specific" that they inadvertently identify a particular manufacturer and its model number.
"This is precisely where we have a systemic problem.
The Armed Forces effectively do not have a fully-fledged requirements management system comparable to those operating in partner countries. Such a system requires specialized expertise: market analysis, economic analysis, comparison of alternatives, and assessment of the technical characteristics and consumer properties of different solutions," the expert explains.
According to the expert, the result of this work should be requirements that clearly describe what needs to be obtained while allowing different manufacturers to offer their own solutions. Procurement officers can then compare proposals, conduct competition, and select the optimal option.
"If this work is not done, expecting the procurement agency to deliver the desired result is roughly like telling a taxi driver the address is ‘somewhere in Kyiv’ and then getting indignant that they did not take you where you needed to go," Silverstov summarizes.
At the same time, there must be interaction between the requirements management system and the procurement system so that all participants work within a single framework and have the same understanding of exactly what problem needs to be solved, for whom, under what conditions, and what the result should be.
"This is about proper interaction between the role of the customer—the Armed Forces of Ukraine—and the role of the contractor, with the Ministry of Defense, research institutes, military administration bodies, and the procurement agency involved on the state’s side.
The point of this interaction is not simply to forward a request ‘for procurement,’ but to arrive together at a better solution—one that takes into account the military’s actual needs, budget constraints, available technologies, market capabilities, delivery timelines, subsequent operation, and the impact on combat capability," the expert believes.