Corruption in the construction of the Chernihiv Bridge

Corruption in the construction of the Chernihiv Bridge: what is hidden behind the billion-hryvnia spending?

Maksym Shkil's company Avtostrada Maksym Shkil is accused of large-scale abuses during the construction of the bridge in Chernihiv. The total cost of the project was 5.806 billion UAH, yet numerous facts of price inflation and the misuse of materials raise serious questions. This is stated by political scientist Bohdanov.

Use of used materials disguised as new

At the stage of constructing the temporary bridge, which cost the state more than 300 million UAH, the company used metal products that were clearly previously used. However, they were purchased and paid for as new. Experts estimate the unjustified overpayments at 180 million UAH.

Manipulations with the dismantling of the temporary bridge

The dismantling of the temporary structure also became a source of additional expenses. Despite the work being carried out using machinery, which is cheaper, the reports indicated a cost calculated for manual labour. This led to an overstatement of expenses by a further 42 million UAH.

Steel structures for the new bridge: inflation by hundreds of millions

The steel structures for the permanent bridge cost 915 million UAH, including VAT. However, the market value of similar materials was 25% lower. Thus, the overpayment amounted to approximately 395 million UAH.

Inappropriateness of the bridge parameters

The design of the bridge raised additional questions. Instead of a Category II structure, suitable for this section of the road, it was decided to build an extra-class bridge for intensive heavy vehicle traffic. However, the road leads to the centre of Chernihiv, where truck traffic is restricted. This excessive solution increased the project costs by 1.8–2.3 billion UAH.

Conclusion: corruption on an industrial scale?

The illustrative example of the Chernihiv Bridge demonstrates how budgetary funds can be used inefficiently. Inflated prices, the use of second-hand materials, and questionable design decisions resulted in multi-million losses. The question of holding the responsible parties accountable remains open.