ARMA’s double standards: investigation of tender anomalies

The asset tracing and management agency, which is supposed to effectively manage seized assets in order to preserve or increase their economic value, increasingly finds itself at the epicenter of scandals. In particular, ARMA draws 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 railway

The first example relates to the purchase of management services for 434 railway cars, where the winner was Resursgroup Financial and Industrial Company LLC. Although ARMA started looking for a manager for this property only after the scandal, it would seem that everything is transparent: competition, qualification criteria, winner. However, a careful analysis of the tender documentation suggests that the conditions of the competition were formed exclusively according to the criteria of a certain 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… transportation contracts and organization of transportation of own cargo by rail transport (in wagons), including with the involvement of third parties (carriers, forwarders)“, it is written in the tender documentation.

That is, according to the logic of ARMA, if a participant in the procedure once ordered transportation services for his own needs (not providing services, but receiving services), he automatically has experience in performing similar contracts.

Imagine that you ordered a taxi – and you can already claim the status of a transport manager.

If someone says that it is not possible, there is an opportunity to analyze the contracts that the participant provided to prove the experience. Namely, all the contracts that were provided testify that LLC “FINANCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANY “RESURSGRUP” acted only as a customer of services.

The most intriguing detail: the winner’s package of documents was completely ready the day after the competition was announced. Whether these are just miracles of professionalism, or whether the documents were prepared in advance — the question remains open.

Dry cargo and “universal” winner

The second case is the procurement of management services for the dry cargo vessel “EMMAKRIS III” and nine other vessels. The victory was won by PP “Marineks”, which also came into focus due to the atypical conditions of the competition.

The tender documentation did not require any material and technical base from the participants. What’s more, the qualification criteria were reduced to the presence of managers’ diplomas, and some employees of the winning company were hired already after the announcement of the competition.

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

Shopping center “Gulliver”: when requirements work against everyone

Another example is the competition for the management of the capital shopping center “Gulliver”. Here, ARMA set impressive requirements for participants. A company that wants to manage a shopping center must have non-residential real estate with an area of ​​at least 35,000 square meters and land plots with a total value of at least 100 million hryvnias. Such conditions immediately excluded most potential participants.

However, several questions arise – why in some competitions the material and technical base is not needed, while in others it becomes a key requirement? When one of the companies questioned the validity of these conditions, the answer was succinct: the requirements are defined because they are “reasonable”.

Instead of conclusions

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

Let’s add

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition for the selection of a manager for the “Gulliver” shopping center. The head of the agency Olena Duma proudly stated that she approached the selection of the manager of this high-profile asset as strictly as possible and even set the maximum possible 4 criteria for candidates.

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

Oschadbank has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer “Gulliver” to ARMA harms the interests of the state bank, because it will deprive it of payments on the loan from the company that owns the capital complex. Oschadbank’s losses due to the suspension of loan payments may exceed 20 billion hryvnias.

After the announcement of the competition, Arsen Milyutin, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank, responsible for work with NPL, commented UNN stated that the state bank plans to foreclose the building of the capital shopping center “Gulliver” in its favor, if ARMA transfers it to management. He expressed his indignation at the fact that instead of payments on loans to state banks, the earnings of “Gulliver” will be given to an “incomprehensible manager”.