Investigation continues into listing municipal assets for auction at outdated book value. Total value of sold objects exceeded 64.8 million hryvnias.
The Frankivskyi Court in Lviv extended the preventive measure for the accused in the murder of Andrii Parubiy.
A 41-year-old man, brought to the facility for violating mobilisation legislation, opened fire with a concealed weapon. He has been charged under several articles of the Criminal Code.
In 2026, the monthly benefit for Heroes of Ukraine who defended the country's sovereignty is 25,941 hryvnia, while families of the deceased receive 12,970.50 hryvnia.
NABU suspect Olha Stefanishyna stated that she has fully reoriented her activities towards the private sector and is preparing proposals for business development in the United States.
Government approves project exempting construction of combined water crossings and access roads from permitting procedures for two years, recommending local budgets fund such works in 2026.
A Ukrainian military operator stated that the appearance of a small enemy group near the "Almazna" mine is a one-off manoeuvre and does not indicate the establishment of a stable presence by the occupiers.
The new head of the veterans' affairs ministry was photographed with visible injuries during a working trip to Sumy, without commenting on the cause of the injuries.
On 13 October 2026, the municipal enterprise "Kyiv Metro" signed a contract with the Slovak company EuroTechService s.r.o. for the supply of a hydraulic press for wheelsets. The deal amount was EUR 935,000, equivalent to approximately UAH 50.16m excluding value-added tax.
Under the contract terms, the supplier is obliged to deliver the WNG300 model equipment, manufactured by the Italian company Officine Meccaniche BBM S.p.A., to Kyiv by the end of 2027. The technical condition requirement states that the press must not have been manufactured before 2024.
The equipment is intended for the assembly and disassembly of wheelset components for metro cars. The press will be used during the repair or manufacture of wheelsets for various car models, including E, 81-714, 81-717 and their modifications, 81-7020, 81-7021, 81-7080 and 81-7081.
The financial terms of the contract provide for a substantial advance payment. The client must pay 70% of the equipment's value, i.e. EUR 654,500, in advance. The supplier will receive a further 20% after the press is delivered, and the remaining 10% after the completion of ancillary works, specifically acceptance tests at the manufacturer, supervisory installation, commissioning, operational testing of the equipment, and staff training.
The performance security is set at 2.5% of the contract value, amounting to EUR 23,387. The warranty period for the equipment is one year.
During the tender procedure, two other companies offered equipment that cost approximately 6% less than the winner's bid. However, their applications were rejected.
The Ukrainian limited liability company "Financial and Industrial Company "Resursgrup" offered a hydraulic press HQ01-300 from the Chinese manufacturer Hubei Heqiang Machinery Development Limited By Share Ltd for UAH 46.90m. The client contacted the manufacturer directly to verify the technical specifications. Documentation received from the manufacturer revealed discrepancies with the participant's bid: specifically, the press's ability to work with individual wheelset components depended on the provision of approved assembly drawings. Therefore, "Resursgrup's" bid was rejected for providing inaccurate information.
The second participant was the Czech company OksichemK s.r.o., which offered equipment from the German manufacturer MAE Maschinen- und Apparatebau Götzen GmbH for UAH 47m. Its application was also rejected due to documentation deficiencies: the participant did not specify the required type of document to confirm the product's compliance with technical requirements, and some documents lacked a handwritten or electronic signature.
As a result, EuroTechService s.r.o. became the winner, despite its bid being the most expensive. At the same time, the mere fact of rejecting cheaper bids is not automatic proof of a legal violation; to establish the validity of the decision, it is necessary to assess the compliance of the bids with the tender conditions.
Particular attention was drawn to the ownership and management structure of the Slovak company. EuroTechService s.r.o. was registered in Slovakia in 2019. On its own website, the enterprise states that it specialises in trenchless rehabilitation of pipelines of various purposes and diameters across Europe. According to journalists, the contract with Kyiv Metro was the company's first state contract in Ukraine.
According to the charter documents, the sole owner of EuroTechService s.r.o. is listed as Ukrainian citizen Serhiy Arent, who resides in Bucha, Kyiv region. The company is managed by two individuals: Serhiy Arent and Maryna Klochova. According to journalists, Maryna Klochova resides in the Russian Federation. The company's first manager was Manuchekhr Burkhanov from Bratislava.
Information about the residence of one of the managers does not in itself prove the existence of Russian control over the company, financial links with the Russian Federation, or violations during the procurement. Establishing such circumstances requires additional verification of current corporate documents, managers' powers, and financial operations.
According to published data, Serhiy Serhiyovych Arent is from Lutsk, Volyn region. In Ukraine, he is engaged in business and public activities. Arent is the owner and manager of the limited liability company "Antares SV". In addition, he is listed among the co-founders of the public organisation "Association of Street Food Professionals. Quality and Safe Food on the Street". He is also the director of the Volyn regional public organisation "Patriot's View".
Thus, the owner of the Slovak company has business and public connections in Ukraine. The question of the current role of other EuroTechService managers and their involvement in the execution of the contract requires separate clarification.
Several circumstances draw attention to the tender: the high cost of the equipment, the rejection of two cheaper bids, the high advance payment, and information about one of the winning company's managers residing in Russia.
Open questions remain regarding whether the client verified the current management structure of the Slovak supplier and possible restrictions related to the Russian Federation. The economic justification of the contract terms, which provide for the payment of 70% of its value before the delivery of the equipment, also requires attention. A separate issue is whether the chosen advance payment mechanism corresponds to the level of financial guarantees provided for in the contract.
At the same time, the published information is not proof of the illegality of the tender or violations by officials of the municipal enterprise.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first!