Hundreds of millions at stake: how Shkil and Fedorov clashed over direct contracts for Kyivvodokanal’s protection works

A public dispute has erupted between the Avtostrada group of companies (founded by Maksym Shkil) and the new leadership of the State Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development of Ukraine, headed by Ivan Fedorov.

The dispute concerns the engineering protection of critical infrastructure facilities operated by Kyivvodokanal, amid water supply disruptions in the capital caused by Russian attacks on the energy sector. Shkil said that in October, the company received an urgent assignment from Agency head Fedorov to begin protecting Kyivvodokanal’s facilities.

Avtostrada assumed the legal risks and immediately began work — without contracts or confirmed funding. A design institute was brought in, geological and geodetic surveys were carried out, and production teams were mobilized.

On November 4, the client conveyed a verbal instruction from Inna Vnukova, the agency’s first deputy head, to suspend work on the projects. On November 5, during a personal meeting with Ivan Fedorov, Avtostrada’s management sought clarification on whether the work should continue.

According to Shkil, the answer was “no” due to “strained relations with the company.” As of the end of November 5, Avtostrada had halted the work, withdrawn its personnel from the sites, and shifted its focus to other projects.

Shkil called Fedorov’s claim that Avtostrada had refused to participate a lie and said that on October 23, the company had sent the client written confirmation of its readiness to carry out the project. On November 7, Ivan Fedorov announced that the Agency was organizing engineering protection for nine Kyivvodokanal facilities.

Work has already begun at seven of them, while work at the remaining two is due to start soon. At least seven experienced contractors are expected to be involved to ensure the required pace, quality, and competition. According to Fedorov, the Agency had surveyed contractors about their readiness to begin work two months earlier.

At that time, Avtostrada declined. Fedorov also mentioned the company’s problems with preparations for winter road maintenance and stressed that the same requirements apply to all contractors, while Avtostrada is the only one publicly complaining about the allocation of work.

There is no separate open tender on Prozorro specifically for the protection of these nine Kyivvodokanal facilities, nor was one planned. This is standard practice for the engineering protection of critical infrastructure. The State Agency for Restoration, through its regional services, enters into direct contracts with contractors, bypassing open tenders.

This is expressly provided for by:

The Agency’s Centralized Procurement Organization operates exclusively through open tenders and is not involved in these “emergency” protection projects. The purpose is to save time, as the standard procedure takes 30 days or more.

This explains why Shkil’s post refers to work being carried out “without contracts and without confirmed funding,” while Fedorov speaks of engaging contractors without referring to a specific tender. Contracts, if already signed, may appear on Prozorro later, solely as reports on directly awarded contracts.

The dispute arose amid problems with Kyiv’s water supply, including a complete or partial shutdown on November 3–4, 2026, after facilities lost power. The State Agency for Restoration is responsible for the engineering protection of critical infrastructure.

The parties’ public statements directly contradict each other over who initiated the suspension of work and whether Avtostrada was ready to participate in the project.