In the public procurement system, attention is drawn to the situation surrounding the allocation of 1 billion tenge by the Committee for State Material Reserves of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Two procurements of army tents with identical specifications and budget were carried out two months apart, and in both cases the procurements received the status "completed".
TIMELINE OF PROCEDURES
First procedure (February)
In early February the committee conducted a procurement. The protocol dated 11 February 2026 recorded 9 potential suppliers. Following the review of applications, the procedure was completed, and the lot card on the portal was assigned the status: "Procurement completed".
Repeat procedure (April)
In April, the agency initiated a new procurement with the same budget of 1 billion tenge and a similar procurement subject. The application deadline ended on 13 April, and the lot also received the status "Procurement completed".
The main question
The reasons for conducting a repeat procurement when a procedure had already been completed are not disclosed in the open data.
PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
The conduct of these procedures was accompanied by a number of particularities. The procurements were carried out using a special procedure (SPPP), under which participants sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which blocked access to the technical specification for external audit.
The deadline for submitting applications in both cases was one working day — from 09:00 to 18:00. Meanwhile, by April the number of participants had decreased from 9 to 4 companies.
Some companies participated in both procedures, including "Alatau Factory" LLP, "DANMARD" LLP and "Adal qamqor KZ" NGO. A new participant also appeared in the April procurement — "Universal - Build" LLP.
FINANCIAL PARAMETERS
The procurement cards lack data to assess the unit cost of the goods:
- the unit price is stated as 0 tenge;
- the quantity — 0;
- yet the total procurement amount is 1 billion tenge.
The absence of these parameters in the public domain makes it impossible to compare budget expenditure with the market price of army tents.
CONCLUSION
The main question remains the reasons for conducting a repeat procurement with similar parameters. These circumstances are not explained in the published documents, which makes it difficult to assess the logic behind decision-making in the allocation of budget funds.