Double standards of ARMA: investigating anomalies in tenders.

The agency for the search and management of assets, which is supposed to effectively oversee seized properties to preserve or enhance their economic value, increasingly finds itself at the center of scandals. Specifically, ARMA has attracted attention due to questionable tender procedures. Are the rules truly the same for everyone? UNN analyzed three high-profile cases and uncovered intriguing details.

Remarkable Speed on the Railway

The first example concerns the procurement of management services for 434 railway cars, where the winner was LLC "Financial and Industrial Company 'Resource Group'." Although ARMA only began searching for a manager for this property after a scandal, everything seemed transparent: a competition, qualification criteria, a winner. However, a careful analysis of the tender documentation suggests that the competition conditions were tailored specifically to the criteria of a particular company.

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

"By 'analogous contracts (experience)', one should understand... contracts for the transportation and organization of transportation of one's own goods by rail (in cars), including with the involvement of third parties (carriers, forwarders)," is stated in the tender documentation.

Thus, according to ARMA's logic, if a participant had once ordered transportation services for its own needs (not providing services, but specifically receiving services), they automatically gain experience in executing analogous contracts.

Imagine, you ordered a taxi—and you can already claim the status of a transportation manager.

If anyone says this is impossible, there is an opportunity to analyze the contracts that the participant provided to confirm their experience. Notably, all contracts submitted indicate that LLC "FINANCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 'RESOURCE GROUP'" acted solely as a client for services.

The most intriguing detail: the winner's document package was fully prepared the day after the competition was announced. Whether this is simply a marvel of professionalism or if the documents were prepared in advance remains an open question.

Bulk Carriers and the 'Universal' Winner

The second case involves the procurement of management services for the bulk carrier "EMMAKRIS III" and nine other vessels. The victory was claimed by the private enterprise "Marinex," which also came under scrutiny due to atypical competition conditions.

The tender documentation did not require participants to have any material and technical base. Moreover, the qualification criteria were reduced to the presence of managers' diplomas, and some employees of the winning company were hired after the competition was announced.

Whether this is transparency or a "default victory"—the question remains unanswered.

Shopping Center 'Gulliver': When Requirements Work Against Everyone

Another example is the competition for managing the capital's shopping center 'Gulliver'. Here, ARMA established impressive requirements for participants. A company wishing to manage the shopping center needed to possess non-residential real estate of at least 35,000 square meters and land plots valued at no less than 100 million hryvnias. Such conditions immediately excluded most potential participants.

However, several questions arise—why in some competitions is a material and technical base unnecessary, while in others it becomes a key requirement? When one of the companies questioned the legitimacy of these conditions, the response was succinct: the requirements were defined because they are "reasonable."

In Conclusion

ARMA positions itself as the vanguard of the fight against corruption, but the analysis of the agency's tenders raises doubts: is this truly an organization with equal rules for all? Suspicions of manipulation and double standards cast a shadow over ARMA's activities and its head, Elena Duma.

Additionally

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition for selecting a manager for the shopping center 'Gulliver.' The agency's head, Elena Duma, proudly stated that she approached the selection of a manager for this high-profile asset with utmost strictness and even established the maximum possible four criteria for candidates.

The building of the shopping center 'Gulliver' serves as collateral for a mortgage loan in state banks, including 'Oschadbank.' However, among the criteria set by ARMA, there is no mention of the necessity to repay the loan.

'Oschadbank' has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer 'Gulliver' to ARMA harms the interests of the state bank, as it would deprive it of payments on the loan from the owner company of the capital complex. The losses to 'Oschadbank' due to the cessation of loan payments could exceed 20 billion hryvnias.

After the competition announcement, the deputy chairman of the board of 'Oschadbank,' responsible for working with NPL, Arsen Milyutin, commented to UNN that the state bank plans to reclaim the building of the capital's shopping center 'Gulliver' if ARMA transfers it for management. He expressed outrage that instead of loan payments to state banks, the earnings of 'Gulliver' would be handed over to an "unidentified manager."