Drone manufacturer General Chereshnya was unable to prove the validity of its claims against the Defense Procurement Agency either in the court of first instance or during the appeal, trying to challenge the legality of the procurement procedure for fiber-optic drones.
Drone manufacturer General Chereshnya was unable to prove the validity of its claims against the Defense Procurement Agency either in the court of first instance or during the appeal, trying to challenge the legality of the procurement procedure for fiber-optic drones.
LB.ua writes about this, referring to information received from the Public Health Agency.
«Today (September 3 — Ed.) the appellate court also confirmed the legality of the procurement procedure applied by the Public Procurement Agency and denied the plaintiff’s claim,» the Agency said in a statement.
Thus, according to the Public Procurement Agency, the procurement procedure was not stopped.
«Currently, there is no threat of supply disruption: the procedure has not been stopped, its subsequent stages will be carried out in accordance with the established procedure. The winner has not yet been determined, since the procedure has not yet been completed,» the Defense Procurement Agency explained.
The agency also cited the aforementioned court decision as an argument in the dispute over the technical characteristics of the products, which was also raised in the course of this conflict.
«The court also confirmed that the need and technical characteristics are determined by the state customer, and AOZ carries out the purchase in accordance with the requirements proven to it. At the same time, the plaintiff himself had the opportunity to participate in the procedure and took advantage of it by submitting a commercial offer,» the AOZ noted.
According to the Agency, they are monitoring the progress of the procurement, the procedure is ongoing, and there is currently no reason to talk about its disruption or suspension of supplies.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defense explained that the use of a special procurement procedure without procedures prescribed by law complies with paragraph 43 of Cabinet Resolution No. 1275 and is due to the need to protect information about defense needs, nomenclature, volumes, and technical characteristics of products.
The main argument for refusing to use the Prozorro system in this case is the security factor, because there, participants in specific procurements see the offers, technical specifications, and addresses of other participants in their accounts, and over time, the history of tenders accumulates in the central database.
As dev.ua reported, the Kyiv District Administrative Court previously opened a case on the lawsuit of the Ukrainian drone manufacturer General Chereshnya against the Defense Procurement Agency (DPA). The company challenged the method and procedure for conducting a tender for the supply of fiber-optic drones.
Before that, activist and volunteer Serhiy Sternenko publicly accused «General Chereshnya» of disrupting tenders, noting that the commercial interests of one manufacturer were jeopardizing the large-scale supply of drones to the front.
In response , the company stated that the AOZ procedures carry corruption risks and are tailored to a specific market player, since the procurement is carried out outside the Prozorro module and in a manner not provided for by law.
