Court rules 4 billion hryvnia allocation for R-08 highway repair to Avtostrada illegal

Court rulings on R-08 highway repair

In May 2021, a repair tender was held on the R-08 "Nemiriv — Yampil" highway, known as the "Road of Presidents". The project budget was 4.28 billion hryvnia. Two participants remained in the final stage of the auction: SP "Avtostrada" with a price of 3,755,299,995 hryvnia and LLC "Rostdorstroy" with a price of 3,755,300,000 hryvnia. The difference between the offers was just 5 hryvnia. On 18 May 2021, contract No. 60/21-P was signed.

The State Audit Service reviewed the winner's documents and published its conclusions in the Prozorro system. Auditors identified several critical violations. First, the dump truck lease agreement with LLC "Avtostrada Trade Group" was valid only until the end of 2021, whereas the work completion deadlines ended in December 2022. Second, the "similar contract" lacked a financing plan. Third, the bank guarantee for 42.8 million hryvnia did not contain a clear definition of the beneficiary, and the signed contract differed from the draft specified in the tender documentation.

Inspectors concluded that "Avtostrada's" offer should have been rejected. If the number of admitted participants had fallen below two, the tender would have been automatically cancelled. Auditors demanded the termination of the signed contract. However, the Vinnytsia Regional Road Service refused to do so and turned to court to protect the contractor's interests. "Avtostrada" joined the case as a third party.

Both parties, which opposed the audit's demands, lost. On 13 December 2024, the Kyiv District Administrative Court dismissed the claim. On 27 June 2025, the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court upheld this decision. The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.

The court ruling explicitly states that "Avtostrada" failed to confirm compliance with qualification criteria regarding equipment, personnel, and experience. The client was required to reject this offer, yet it designated the company as the winner and signed a contract. The demand to terminate the obligation is "subject to enforcement".

Additional works without competition

Half a year after auditors demanded the contract be terminated, on 24 December 2021, the Vinnytsia Regional Road Service appointed "Avtostrada" to perform additional works on the same R-08 highway for 988.29 million hryvnia without holding a competition. The justification field in the Prozorro system remained empty.

Currently, no public information has been found on whether the main contract was terminated after the final court ruling came into force.

Dubious tenders on R-33 highway

In October 2021, a tender was held for the repair of the R-33 "Vinnytsia — Turbiv — Haisyn" highway with a budget of 3.47 billion hryvnia. Once again, the same companies ended up in the final stage: "Avtostrada" (3,465 million hryvnia) and "Rostdorstroy" (3,468 million hryvnia). On 1 December 2021, contract No. 134/21-P was signed.

The State Audit Service found identical documents in the offers of both "competitors": Swarovski certificates with the same number, the same order for a supervisory audit, and identical certificates for Helios products. Additionally, "Avtostrada" lacked State Labour Service permits for two of four cranes, while "Rostdorstroy" lacked supply contracts.

The State Audit Service classified these actions as "unobjective and biased determination of the winner". The Road Service again turned to court, and "Avtostrada" again became a participant in the proceedings. On 23 May 2023, the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court cancelled the State Audit's conclusion, supporting the client's position.

It is worth noting that just three weeks after the main contract was signed, on 20 December 2021, a negotiated contract for 552.95 million hryvnia appeared on the R-33 highway. This agreement was also concluded without a tender, and the justification field remained empty.

Summary

In total, this concerns two lots worth 7.2 billion hryvnia. In both cases, the same "competitor" appears, losing by a minimal margin (5 hryvnia in the first case and 3 million hryvnia in the second). Identical documents were found in competitors' offers. There is a final court ruling that the winner on R-08 should have been rejected. Additionally, over 1.5 billion hryvnia worth of "additional works" were carried out without competition.

Analysis indicates that the existing situation is a formality rather than real competition. Questions arise: who prepared documents for "Rostdorstroy" with numbers matching "Avtostrada's" documents? Why did the service, which was supposed to terminate the contract, defend the contractor instead of the budget in court? And who is responsible for over a billion hryvnia of "additional works" on a road whose contract the court ordered to be terminated?