Violations in the field of public procurement

Public procurement in Ukraine is one of the key components of the modern economy, affecting both the efficiency of budget funds management and the level of trust in state institutions. During wartime, the scale of international aid and the implementation of large reconstruction projects, transparency and integrity in procurement become critically important. However, despite years of reforms, the public procurement sector remains vulnerable to various types of violations and abuses.

Key forms of violations in public procurement

The main types of violations are recorded by the State Audit Service, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, non-governmental organizations, and anti-corruption institutions. The most common violations include:

• Avoidance of open bidding. Contracting authorities often split the procurement subject into small contracts to evade competitive tendering procedures. This limits competition and leads to inefficient use of funds.
• Improper choice of procurement type. Instead of the mandatory competitive procedure, a direct contract or non-competitive form is chosen, which nullifies transparency mechanisms.
• Discriminatory requirements in tender documentation. Procurers may include specific qualifications or requirements that artificially narrow the pool of potential bidders—such as unnecessary certificates or specific experience.
• Collusion among procurement participants. These schemes involve prior agreements among suppliers about market division or price coordination, destroying real competition.
• Unjustified disqualification of participants. Contracting authorities may unjustifiably reject beneficial or undesirable bids.
• Formal violations during monitoring and reporting. Delays or disregard for publication rules regarding procurement information, contracts, annual plans, etc.
• Violations in payment or contract performance. There may be delays in contract execution to increase the project cost, or payments made for goods or services not delivered.

Statistics and the scale of the problem

Anti-corruption and financial authorities annually record thousands of procurement violations. In 2024 alone, the State Audit Service identified over 8,000 tenders with violations exceeding 92 billion UAH, and the Accounting Chamber reported over half a billion UAH in abuses during control actions. A significant share of procurements (92% in 2023) were conducted without competitive procedures, which significantly increases corruption and inefficiency risks.

There is a widespread practice of formal (minor) violations, which do not lead to serious abuse but are also often recorded—such as publication delays, technical proposal errors, etc. Yet even such “minor” deviations can accumulate and harm the overall integrity system.

Causes of violations in procurement

The detected violations have both objective and subjective causes:

• Weakness of institutional control mechanisms. Despite the existence of Prozorro, the State Audit Service, and the Antimonopoly Committee, enforcement mechanisms are not always effective.
• Low qualification of procurers. Many specialists lack sufficient training and make mistakes in documentation.
• Complexity and frequent changes in legislation. Multi-layered regulation and discrepancies between different laws, especially during wartime, hinder compliance.
• Corruption motivation. Some violations result from abuse of office, collusion, or use of discretionary decisions against state interests.
• Low public involvement. Weak civil oversight enables abuses to be hidden, even though Prozorro provides an open process.

Anti-corruption mechanisms and accountability

Ukrainian law clearly defines the responsibility of authorized persons and heads of procurers for non-compliance with public procurement rules (Article 164-14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). Liability includes administrative fines and disciplinary sanctions. In particularly grave cases, criminal proceedings may be opened—for example, in cases of fraud or collusion.

The following institutions are tasked with preventing abuses:

• State Audit Service (continuous monitoring and audits)
• Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (complaint review and appeals)
• National Agency on Corruption Prevention (identification of corruption risks)
• NGOs/DOZORRO (analytical oversight, reporting violations)
• Prozorro platform, which publishes all procurements online

Trends of 2024–2025: new challenges and specifics

Recently, especially in wartime, procurement risks have increased. The following trends are observed:

• Mass use of non-competitive procedures due to urgent state needs
• “Exploration” of large volumes of international aid—a new challenge to spending transparency
• Emergence of new corruption schemes in defense, infrastructure reconstruction, and healthcare
• Frequent misuse of funds or lowering of quality in goods/works

There is also some progress—Prozorro receives international transparency awards, while anti-corruption agencies are more active, often responding to public signals and investigative reporting. In 2023–2025, the number of detected violations increased thanks to automated audits, openness of information, and data integration.

What needs to be improved: key recommendations

1. Raise the professional level of procurement participants, develop educational projects and certification systems for authorized persons.
2. Ensure stable and codified legislation, minimize frequent changes and discrepancies in regulations.
3. Strengthen independent oversight—guarantee transparent monitoring, fast response to complaints, and simplified protection of bidders’ rights.
4. Implement IT solutions for automatic anomaly detection in tenders, use artificial intelligence for primary “red flag” analysis.
5. Toughen sanctions for systemic violations/collusion, make liability inevitable for both procurers and unscrupulous suppliers.
6. Enhance the role of civil society, broaden the pool of independent analysts conducting “bottom-up” procurement audits.

Conclusion

The public procurement sector is crucial for effective state development and public trust, especially under heavy budgetary pressure and international scrutiny. Violations in this system are not just a legal but a profound social problem, requiring comprehensive, preventive and unavoidable responses. Only systematic efforts and shared responsibility of all stakeholders will help overcome old schemes and create an efficient procurement system ensuring transparency and fair use of Ukraine’s public resources.

Prepared by: Nataliia Zharyuk, criminal law and procedure attorney at the law association “WINNER”.