.webp)
On June 3, 2025, the Kalynivka Support Institution of General Secondary Education of I-III Degrees of the Berislav District of the Kherson Region announced a tender for the new construction of a civil defense protective structure for its branch — “Bobrovyi Kut General Secondary Education of I-III Degrees - Preschool Educational Institution”.
The expected cost of the work was UAH 28.87 million.
The auction was to be held on June 20, and only one company, TOV VYROBNYCHO-KOMERTSIYNA FIRMA "Budkom," participated. The company became the winner, offering UAH 28.1 million, which is only UAH 765,000 less than the initial amount.
The project involves the construction of a shelter for schoolchildren and workers in a front-line settlement. However, on June 30, 2025, the Southern Office of the State Audit Service in the Kherson region began monitoring this procurement (order No. 48-з), indicating the identified signs of violations of the legislation in the field of public procurement.
Procurement audit: what went wrong?
Monitoring covers the stages of opening tender offers, their consideration, and evaluation. The State Audit Service of Ukraine sent the customer requests for explanations, in particular:
- which documents served as the basis for determining the expected cost and technical characteristics of the facility;
- whether the provisions of the Framework Agreement on the Ukraine Facility, signed with the EU in May 2024, were taken into account;
- where was the justification for the construction cost published.
The Framework Agreement on the Ukraine Facility provides for using EU funds only under transparency, efficiency, and targeted use conditions. Articles 16–17 clearly define anti-corruption standards, mechanisms for controlling contractors, and Ukraine's obligation to ensure appropriate public procedures.
If answers are not provided substantially, auditors may transfer the materials to law enforcement agencies. At the same time, according to the legislation, obstruction of the activities of the state financial control body may be grounds for criminal liability (Article 351-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Contractor with a dubious history
TOV VYROBNYCHO-KOMERTSIYNA FIRMA "Budkom" was registered in Kharkiv in 1997. Its authorized capital is UAH 9,375. Leonid Penkov (also a director) and Valerii Turchenko are co-owners, and they own 50% of the assets.
The company owns 14 vehicles, including:
- HONDA Accord, 2003, gray, sedan
- KAMAZ 55111, 2007, orange, truck crane over 20 tons
- RENAULT Laguna, 2008, gray, hatchback
- GAZ 2705, 2004, blue, light van
- RENAULT Kangoo, 2007, blue, cargo-passenger
It also owns MAZ trucks, truck cranes, dump trucks, TRAILOR, ODAZ semi-trailers, and PGA trailers, which may indicate technical capability, but part of the fleet is outdated.
The company has been in the media spotlight only twice, in 2017 and 2025.
In 2017, the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center mentioned the company in journalistic investigations: it was the only competitor of LLC Mashstroyservice in the tender for the repair of the Kharkiv swimming pool. Both companies previously had a common registration address—5 Naberezhna Krupskoy (now Saburivska) St. This indicates possible formal competition between related structures.
The investigation stated that LLC Mashstroyservice's owners are Halyna and Ihor Vorobiov. The latter is the son-in-law of the former vice-mayor of Kharkiv, Oleksandr Popov, who oversaw sports issues. The company's director is Mykhailo Grevtsev, and the signatory is Valentina Fedosieieva.
The former director of Mashstroyservice, Valerii Vorobiov (father-in-law of Popov's daughter), was given a suspended sentence for embezzling local budget funds during the reconstruction of school sports grounds.
The sentence of the Dzerzhynskyi District Court of Kharkiv is two years suspended and a fine of UAH 4,250.
TOV VYROBNYCHO-KOMERTSIYNA FIRMA "Budkom" is a defendant in a criminal case
While monitoring this procurement, we got acquainted in detail with the investigation of the Center of Journalistic Investigations and learned that in January 2025, the public organization "Platforma Public Control" filed an application with the NABU with a request to investigate the facts of possible misappropriation of budget funds during the performance of work in the village of Orlove, Kherson region.
According to preliminary estimates, the overestimation of the volume of work and the cost of materials could have caused budget losses of more than UAH 5.3 million.
When the detectives did not open proceedings within the statutory period, the NGO appealed to the High Anti-Corruption Court with a complaint. This is an important precedent: the public's activity allows us to change the situation when law enforcement agencies do not react automatically.
The court considered the complaint of the NGO "Platforma Public Control" regarding the failure of NABU to enter information into the ERDR on a statement about corruption with the participation of "Budkom",and embezzled funds (Appendix Nos. on February 14, 2025, decided:
- The complainant indicated that "Budkom" and the school in Orlove could have overstated expenses by UAH 5.3 million and embezzled funds (Appendix Nos. 1-2).
- But the law obliges NABU to register cases only if the amount exceeds 2000 subsistence minimums, which for 2024 is UAH 6056000 (subsistence minimum = UAH 3028) (resolution, p. 3.7).
- After all, UAH 5.3 million, in the opinion of the court, is less than this threshold, and there were no violations by “Budkom” or the school that would correspond to Articles 191 or 364 of the Criminal Code — and therefore criminal cases are not opened (resolution in paragraph 3.7).
- In addition, the application did not specify exactly which officials of the institution or enterprise participated in the scheme (also paragraph 3.7).
As a result, the court refused to satisfy the complaint (resolution, paragraph 3.8), noting that the facts do not fall under the elements of a crime stipulated by Articles 191 or 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Despite this, thanks to the NGO “Platform of Public Control” initiative, it was possible to bring the situation to the national level. This is an example of how even one professional public action can launch public control and force officials and contractors to publicly explain their actions.
Conclusion
The construction of the shelter in Bobrovyi Kut is another example of a non-competitive tender. The contract was awarded to a company with ties to old schemes, a history with criminal defendants, and participation in projects with potential cost overruns.
The State Audit Office's ongoing monitoring is an important safeguard, but public control and publicity of the results remain key in such cases. Given the use of budgetary and, possibly, international funds, it is critical to comply with the terms of the EU Framework Agreement and ensure transparency of project implementation.
To involve more people in overseeing such processes, we have developed a short guide on how everyone can get involved in monitoring procurement in their community. These simple actions work and can influence the course of events.
The material was published thanks to the support of the Czech non-governmental organization NESEHNUTÍ within the framework of the Transformational Cooperation Program of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.
