A Major Package of Changes to Public Procurement Rules: An Analysis of the Resolution

Amendments to Resolution No. 1178 are not always good news for the procurement community, but this time the government has taken several important and long-anticipated steps — including some that TI Ukraine has been advocating for a long time. On July 15, through Resolution No. 957, it reinstated the mandatory use of the negotiated procedure, borrowed the value thresholds from the current version of Law No. 922-VIII, extended the deadlines for submitting bids, and even abolished the mandatory use of the electronic catalogue for food procurement. In addition, some of the exceptions are being reduced or reserved solely for defense-sector contracting authorities. On top of that, the Cabinet of Ministers introduced an obligation to publish certificates of completed works in the Prozorro system. 

Resolution No. 957 enters into force on September 1, 2026, except for the changes concerning localization, which take effect immediately upon the resolution’s publication. It does more than make technical adjustments — it substantially rethinks the approaches to selecting a procurement method. The changes will therefore affect contracting authorities, bidders, and public monitoring alike. Most of them will facilitate the gradual transition to the new version of the Law on Public Procurement, which will take effect in spring 2027. In this analysis, we break down what will change in procurement in the near future.

Key takeaways

The Cabinet of Ministers has adopted amendments to the resolution that governs public procurement rules under martial law. Most of the changes will support the gradual transition to the new version of the Law on Public Procurement, which takes effect in spring 2027 — meaning they are needed for European integration. The changes are also expected to have a largely positive effect on the transparency and competitiveness of procurement:

• the return of the mandatory negotiated procedure in place of direct contracts;
• a reduction in the number of exceptions to competitive procedures under martial law, in line with the recommendations of the European Commission and the Accounting Chamber;
• the introduction of a requirement to publish certificates of completed works for construction procurement exceeding UAH 10 million;
• the removal of the mandatory use of Prozorro Market for food procurement;
• the extension of the minimum period for submitting bids in open tendering to 15 days — for works as well as for goods and services;
• a distinction between ordinary contracting authorities and those in special sectors, and the return of the thresholds from the current Law.

Transparency International Ukraine has long advocated for most of these changes.

Recommendation

Balance the approaches to construction procurement in the energy sector. At present, such procurement partly falls simultaneously under both the option to run a negotiated procedure and the option to conclude a direct contract and, importantly, is subject to differing reporting rules and disclosure timelines.

Thresholds and contracting authorities — as in the Law

In the first months after the Specifics took effect, the lowering of thresholds proved a challenge for many contracting authorities in special sectors. Whereas these entities had previously operated under thresholds of UAH 1 million for goods and services and UAH 5 million for works, back in 2022 they were effectively equated with ordinary contracting authorities, and the thresholds for procuring goods and services fell as low as UAH 100,000. 

Now, in 2026, the government is restoring the distinction between ordinary contracting authorities and those in special sectors and is also bringing back the value thresholds set out in the current version of the Law. 

For ordinary contracting authorities: 

• UAH 200,000 — for the procurement of goods and services;
• UAH 1.5 million — for the procurement of works. 

For contracting authorities in special sectors:

• UAH 1 million — for goods and services; 
• UAH 5 million — for works. 

While this change will remove some lower-value procurement from the competitive field, it will at least bring the threshold limits back into line with the Law and should make contracting authorities’ work easier. 

Prozorro Market for food is now optional

From spring 2024 until now, contracting authorities have been required to conduct above-threshold procurement of most food products through the electronic catalogue. At the time, DOZORRO called this move risky — imposing such a no-alternatives obligation on contracting authorities. Practice has shown that the absence of challenges to the AMCU and of State Audit Service monitoring in Prozorro Market procurement is a critical flaw in this mechanism, one that leads to numerous abuses. In particular, a TI Ukraine study found that more than half (55%) of coal procurements made through Prozorro Market contained unlawful requirements to submit additional documents and set extremely short deadlines for their submission — potentially discriminatory conditions. 

Moreover, the mandatory nature of the catalogue artificially narrows the range of lawful conduct available to contracting authorities and creates a restricted market segment — one where access for businesses and their products depends heavily on the actions, decisions, or inaction of the state-appointed administrator, all against a backdrop of insufficiently detailed legal regulation. 

The government is now abolishing the mandatory use of the electronic catalogue for food procurement. The annex listing these products is also being removed from the resolution. So contracting authorities will now be able to choose whichever path they consider more effective: continuing to procure food through the catalogue, or running a tender — including concluding a framework agreement. 

The return of the negotiated procedure: grounds 

One of the most significant changes is the return of the negotiated procedure. TI Ukraine advocated for this step, in particular on the basis of its study of above-threshold direct procurement. That study found that roughly 70% of the value of above-threshold direct contracts consisted of procurement on grounds that had previously required a negotiated procedure. 

Instead of the familiar list of grounds for above-threshold procurement without using the electronic system, clause 13 of the Specifics will now contain a list of grounds for the negotiated procedure. Overall, these are similar to the current list but substantially shortened. The following grounds remain for the negotiated procedure:

1. Cancellation of open tendering after no bids were submitted. 

For this ground, the drafters retained everything developed under the Specifics: unlike the Law, a single cancelled open tender is enough to justify a negotiated procedure. This approach, incidentally, is consistent with Directive 2014/24/EU. In a negotiated procedure following open tendering, the draft contract and the maximum value excluding VAT must remain unchanged. In addition, a new requirement has appeared: the justification for the negotiated procedure must specify the announcement number of the open tender that was cancelled.

2. The provision on works, goods, or services that can be performed, supplied, or provided exclusively by a particular business entity has not undergone any substantive changes compared with the current version of the Specifics and simply becomes a ground for the negotiated procedure. 

3. The conditions for procurement based on urgent need have been revised. First of all, the government clarified what constitutes an urgent need by adding a description of this situation that was absent from the Law: 

“there is an objective, documented need to carry out the procurement, driven by circumstances unforeseeable for the contracting authority and independent of its decisions, actions, or inaction, which make it impossible to observe the deadlines for open tendering or to use the electronic catalogue where goods are being procured.”

As the Specifics currently provide, an urgent need must, in terms of timing, make it impossible to hold open tendering or use the electronic catalogue. In addition, the government clarified that the circumstances of an urgent need must specifically be unforeseeable and independent of the contracting authority’s decisions, actions, or inaction. This is worth bearing in mind when planning procurement. 

The drafters of the resolution also borrowed from the Law a somewhat modified list of cases in which an urgent procurement need may arise. But, unlike the Law, they kept the list non-exhaustive. It will therefore not constrain contracting authorities and will allow a negotiated procedure in all cases where a corresponding urgent need exists. Among these, the resolution expressly provides for the immediate mitigation of the consequences of emergencies or of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, humanitarian aid to other states, termination of a procurement contract through the bidder’s fault, and challenges filed in open tendering. The last of these, admittedly, may to some extent depend on the contracting authority’s own decisions, since it is the challenge to them that gives rise to the need. Nevertheless, this type of urgent-need situation is expressly provided for.

4.Procurement of additional volumes of goods, works, or services from a supplier under an existing contract. These provisions have become grounds for the negotiated procedure almost unchanged; the only important clarification is that the main contract for procuring works or services must have been concluded specifically as a result of open tendering, rather than of procurement in general as is currently the case. It is that contract which must set out the option and the terms for performing the additional works or services. And the 50% ceiling that the value of the additional procurement must not exceed will be calculated excluding VAT.

5. Another ground for the negotiated procedure is borrowed from the Law — the procurement of goods under the procedure for restoring a debtor’s solvency. 

6. The procurement of legal services to settle disputes heard by foreign jurisdictional bodies is set out in the wording taken from the Law and must therefore be based on a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers or the National Security and Defense Council. Procurement related to the contracting authority’s participation in international exhibition events is added here as well.

7. From the Specifics, the list of grounds for the negotiated procedure additionally includes procurement of:

1. goods, works, and services needed to support the construction of military engineering and fortification structures, for the urgent needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, other military formations, law enforcement bodies, the State Emergency Service, and higher military educational institutions at their request, with the subsequent transfer of the procurement item onto the requester’s books (formerly subclause 21 of clause 13);
2. items needed for the protection, restoration, reconstruction, maintenance, siting, and construction of destroyed or damaged critical infrastructure facilities (a consolidation of various subclauses of clause 13);
3. procurement in cases where the contracting authority or its separate subdivision is located in an area of active hostilities that have not ceased as of the date the procurement contract is concluded (formerly subclause 2 of clause 13).

In this way, the grounds for the negotiated procedure now take the place of the former exceptions to competitive procedures in clause 13 of the Specifics. This step is likely to be welcomed by the European Commission and, we hope, will be taken into account in the further assessment of Ukraine’s progress in harmonizing its procurement legislation with the European directives.

How the negotiated procedure is changing

Beyond the grounds for it, the Specifics now regulate how the negotiated procedure is conducted, how information about it is published, and the specifics of challenging and reporting on it. 

Importantly for the choice of counterparty, the requirement for a bidder to confirm the absence of grounds for refusing its participation in the negotiated procedure under clause 47 of the Specifics has been extended to all grounds for the procedure — including a negotiated procedure due to a lack of competition and one for additional volumes. Thus, even in such no-alternative negotiated procedures, bidders will be refused participation where grounds for refusal exist. 

The notice of intent to conclude a contract under the negotiated procedure will generally match the rules of the current Law, but with several additions:

1. If the negotiated procedure is conducted because open tendering that received no bids was cancelled, the contracting authority must state in its justification whether the winner of the negotiated procedure meets the qualification criteria set out in the tender documentation for the open tender (if any were specified there). A description of those criteria must also be attached. 
2. By analogy with other procurement, the notice of intent to conclude a contract under the negotiated procedure will state information about the ultimate beneficial owners of the bidder with which the contract is intended to be concluded. This information will be generated automatically by the Prozorro system. Alternatively, where this is not technically possible or where the bidder is a non-resident, the contracting authority will add the information itself. 
3. For negotiated procedures carried out to build fortifications, at the request of military units, or to protect infrastructure, special disclosure rules have been added for the Prozorro system: the contracts and any amendments to them will be published 90 days after martial law ends. 

A negotiated procedure may be challenged within five days (three days for a negotiated procedure based on urgent need and for one used to procure certain energy-sector and utility-sector goods) from the day the complainant learned, or should have learned, of the violation of its rights resulting from the contracting authority’s decision, action, or inaction, but before the day the contract is concluded. Complaints in a negotiated procedure based on urgent need will have a shortened review period — three business days. 

For all complaints, not only those concerning the negotiated procedure, the government clarified that where it is not technically possible to upload information, documents, and materials on the procurement procedure to Prozorro, the parties are to submit them by another accessible means designated by the review body.

If the negotiated procedure is not challenged, then once these five (or three) days have elapsed, the contracting authority is entitled to conclude the contract. This period is half as long as the one provided for in the Law, so it should not significantly delay meeting the contracting authority’s need. 

The Specifics also slightly clarify the cancellation of a negotiated procedure: if a contracting authority cancels it because violations cannot be remedied, it must describe those violations.

Reducing the exceptions to competitive procedures

Among the former grounds for concluding a direct contract that existed in clause 13 of the Specifics, the option to conclude one is retained only until December 31, 2026, and only for the following exceptions:

•  the procurement of goods, works, and services relating to the construction, repair, and other engineering measures to protect critical infrastructure facilities in the fuel and energy sector (formerly subclause 13 of clause 13); 
• experimental procurement to protect the life-support systems of critical infrastructure under Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 142 of February 7, 2025 (formerly subclause 13 of clause 13);
• the procurement of a range of types of energy equipment needed to mitigate the consequences of, or to prevent, an emergency, as well as works and services relating to their construction, restoration, reconstruction, siting, and capital repairs at the relevant facilities and to their protection, as part of the measures envisaged by the Comprehensive Resilience Plans for regions and individual cities approved by the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine of March 3, 2026, and brought into effect by Presidential Decree No. 239 of March 14, 2026 (formerly subclause 28 of clause 13). 

For such procurement, contracting authorities will publish a report on the procurement contract concluded without using the electronic system, together with the justification of the grounds for such procurement. The requirements to have the justification approved by the head of the contracting authority or a person designated by them, as well as the requirements to publish information about beneficial owners, remain in place. 

 Likewise, a separate set of requirements to report the prices of materials will continue to apply to procurement contracts for current repairs and for new construction, reconstruction, restoration, and capital repair works. Once such contracts are concluded, contracting authorities will have to upload not only the report and the justification but also the contract and its annexes, along with information on the prices of materials in machine-readable format.

For the remaining contracts, the requirement to upload the contract and its annexes will also apply, but the system will make them public 90 days after martial law ends. 

In addition to this wholesale rethink of the approach to direct procurement in clause 13, the government removed a number of exceptions to the requirements to apply procurement procedures or simplified procurement that existed in clause 9 of the Specifics, namely procurement: 

• for measures to search for persons missing under special circumstances and for the repatriation and return of missing persons (military and civilian) carried out by the Ministry for Reintegration and the state-owned enterprises within its remit;
• for unity centers operating under Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 841 of July 14, 2025;
• for the servicing of state-owned property of a maritime oil terminal by a business company wholly owned (100% of shares) by another fully state-owned business company — this exception expired in 2025 and was therefore removed as a technical matter;

• of goods, works, and services by defense-industrial complex enterprises to mitigate the consequences of hostilities under martial law, in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers acts on the allocation of funds from the reserve fund of the state budget.

Reviewing and reducing the number of exceptions to competitive procedures is the right step, one that aligns with the European Commission’s recommendations in its EU Enlargement Report on Ukraine, as well as with the recommendations of the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine issued following its analysis of the Ministry of Economy’s annual report.

A separate list of grounds for defense direct procurement

Previously, Resolution No. 1275, which governs defense procurement under martial law, referred — alongside its own grounds for direct contracts — to the grounds set out in clause 13 of the Specifics. That reference has now been removed and, in its place, those grounds relevant to defense procurement have been added directly to Resolution No. 1275. These include:

• cancellation of open tendering due to no bids being submitted;
• the contracting authority or its separate subdivision being located in an area of active hostilities that have not ceased as of the date the state contract is concluded;
• the ability to perform the contract exclusively by a particular business entity owing to a lack of competition for technical reasons or the need to protect intellectual property rights, or the conclusion of a state contract with a supplier of last resort or a universal service provider for the supply of electricity or natural gas;
• urgent need;
• the need to supply an additional volume of goods or to perform additional works or services by the existing performer of the state contract;
• the procurement of attorney (bar) services.

Fifteen days to submit bids across the board

Welcome news for businesses is the extension of the deadlines for submitting bids in open tendering for goods and services: as with the procurement of works, they will now run from 15 days after the announcement is published. 

An improvement for public oversight — publishing completion certificates

A long-awaited step for the civil society organizations that monitor construction procurement is the publication of completion certificates. TI Ukraine’s DOZORRO program has been advocating for this step for several years for high-value procurement of construction works, since it is the certificates that record the actual prices of the materials used. 

The government has added to the Specifics a requirement to publish acceptance certificates for completed construction works and the certificate(s) of the value of completed construction works and costs. The requirement will apply to contracts of UAH 10 million or more including VAT under which current-repair services or works for new construction (including the development of design documentation), reconstruction, restoration, or capital repairs were procured. These documents must be published within five business days of being signed.

Extending and broadening the localization exemptions for energy

For the procurement of a range of types of energy equipment, the government extended the exemption from localization requirements to the end of 2026, clarifying that it applies to procurement not only to mitigate the consequences of, but also to prevent, an emergency in power systems — at both the national and the regional level. 

This concerns the procurement of steam turbines, gas-piston units, cogeneration units, power-generation units, gas generators, gas-turbine units and modular boiler houses, heat pumps, steam boilers, mobile boiler houses, and diesel generators, including the components and parts of such equipment.

This same exemption from localization requirements was extended until March 25, 2028, for procurement under the experimental project for the construction and installation of independent backup power supply systems in apartment buildings in the city of Kyiv (under Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 353 of March 20, 2026). 

Overall, both exemptions were expanded to allow the procurement — regardless of the degree of localization — not only of the goods themselves but also of works or services relating to the construction, restoration, reconstruction, siting, or capital repair of the relevant facilities and to their protection, provided that performing such works or providing such services entails the contracting authority acquiring ownership of the relevant listed goods.

Conclusions

To sum up, Resolution No. 957 introduces a number of positive changes to the regulation of procurement that should make it more competitive and transparent. Transparency International Ukraine has long advocated for some of them. Moreover, while the changes were being drafted, the organization provided proposals for technical and legal edits, including to unblock the option of running a negotiated procedure.

We support the return of the negotiated procedure, the longer deadlines for submitting bids in tenders for goods and services, the introduction of requirements to publish certificates of completed works, and the removal of the mandatory use of the electronic catalogue for food procurement. Most of the changes will aid the gradual preparation for the new version of the Law on Public Procurement, which will take effect in spring 2027. Beyond the higher thresholds and longer submission deadlines, contracting authorities will be able to adapt to the return of the negotiated procedure and to choose the optimal method for procuring food.

Reducing the number of exceptions to competitive procedures aligns with the European Commission’s recommendations in its EU Enlargement Report on Ukraine and with the recommendations of the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine and, we hope, will be taken into account in the further assessment of the legislation and the sector as a whole.

Extending and broadening the localization exemptions will likely help contracting authorities cope more easily with the challenges arising from Russia’s strikes on energy facilities. 

Among the resolution’s shortcomings, one can single out a degree of duplication in the approaches to procurement in the energy sector. The ground for the negotiated procedure related to ensuring the protection, restoration, reconstruction, maintenance, siting, and construction of critical infrastructure facilities destroyed or damaged as a result of Russia’s armed aggression partly overlaps with a similar ground for concluding a direct contract. The resolution’s provisions apply different approaches to reporting on works contracts and current-repair contracts in the energy sector concluded directly versus through the negotiated procedure. Thus, where a works contract is concluded directly under clause 9-2 of the Specifics, the contract and its annexes — including the prices of materials — will be made public immediately. By contrast, where a negotiated procedure is carried out under subclauses 8 or 9 of clause 13 of the Specifics, the system will make such information public only after martial law ends. This difference in approach appears unbalanced and will likely require further attention and refinement.

This material is funded by the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.