“ARMA vs open competition: is everything really so transparent in the competition for a manager for Gulliver shopping centerArma has announced a competition to manage the Gulliver shopping center with extremely strict selection criteria. Experts believe
that such requirements may limit competition and indicate a bias in the competition.”, — write: unn.ua
Details
On October 30, ARMA announced a competition to select a manager for the Gulliver shopping center. The head of the agency Elena Duma proudly statedthat 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. Among the conditions that the contest participants must fulfill are the property status with a total value of at least UAH 100 million, a professional team, proven experience in managing similar facilities and confirmed financial viability.
According to experts, such requirements can significantly narrow the circle of potential participants.
“The more stringent the requirements for any competitive procedures, the fewer people will be able to take part in them.these four requirements are high in themselves. Here it is necessary to raise the question of how justified such requirements are. I believe that in certain areas they could be reduced in order to allow a wider range of people to participate in the selection,” lawyer Oleg Shram said in an exclusive comment to UNN.
In turn, the former chairman of the public council under the ARMA Igor Chobitko notedthat the rigidity of the criteria may not be accidental and indicate bias in the organization of the competition.
“This is most likely similar to the fact that there is a question of redistributing business between competitors, and it is under this scheme that such competitions are held. And if there were no such property criteria, then any entrepreneur with experience could exercise their right to manage such a complex,” the expert believes.
Experts suggest that the contest could have been organized taking into account someone’s private interests. Although there is no direct evidence of a corruption component yet, the very structure of requirements for participants provokes suspicion. Therefore, such situations should be closely monitored by anti-corruption bodies. In particular, the NABU should investigate whether there were abuses in the process of forming the terms of the competition.
“ARMA is a criminal organization of the authorities. I am convinced that such competitions prescribe such conditions in order to select an absolutely accurate and already known and real person for the manager. It is under this person that the rules are spelled out.no one blindly uses the ARMA management. He does everything in advance, understanding the consequences of his actions,” says security expert Sergey Shabovta.
Therefore, despite the statements of ARMA chairman Elena Duma about a strict approach to selection, experts still call for greater transparency and a balanced approach, which would expand the circle of potential participants and reduce the risks of bias.
Add
In addition, when announcing the competition, the agency for asset search and management did not take into account the fact that the building of the Gulliver shopping center is collateral for a mortgage loan in state – owned banks, including Oschadbank. However, among the criteria issued by the ARMA, there is no mention of the need to pay 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 loan payments from the owner company of the capital’s Complex. Non-compliance by Oschadbank, revenues due to the termination of loan payments may reach more than UAH 20 billion.
After the announcement of the competition, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank, responsible for working with NPL Arsen Milyutin in a comment to UNN statedthat the State Bank plans to recover in its favor the building of the capital’s Gulliver shopping center , if ARMA transfers it to management. He expressed outrage that instead of paying off the loan to state-owned banks, Gulliver’s earnings will be given to an “incomprehensible manager.
Only after that and under public pressure, ARMA representatives decided to meet with Arsen Milyutin, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank responsible for working with NPL, to discuss issues of managing the seized asset that affect the interests of the state bank in terms of paying off loan debts. As expected, it was not possible to reach a consensus at the meeting and the parties agreed to “continue cooperation”. Milyutin saidthat at the meeting in Arma , they promised to once again “investigate in detail” the relevant regulations for the possibility of including payments to creditor banks in management costs. However, it is worth noting that Arma’s rhetoric has not changed dramatically after this meeting – they continue to justify that the current legislation does not allow the agency to become a creditor or debtor in the obligations of the asset owner.