Another scandal is brewing in the Kharkiv region surrounding the use of budget funds in the education sector. On December 11, the Kholodnohirsky District Education Department signed a contract for over UAH 1.1 million for the major repair of part of the roof of Gymnasium No. 86. Formally, it is part of energy-saving measures. In fact, it is a contract that contains signs of overstating the cost of materials by at least a quarter of a million hryvnias.
The contract for the renovation was awarded to individual entrepreneur Valentina Solokha. Her business activity was registered only in September of this year, but in less than a month, the newly created individual entrepreneur unexpectedly began winning government contracts one after another — both in the Kholodnohirsk and Novobavarsk education departments, and in various municipal structures of Kharkiv, including the Housing and Utilities Department and the regional prosecutor's office.
Before the start of the full-scale war, Solokha worked as a chief specialist in the education department of the Valkiv District State Administration. The construction sector was not related to her previous activities, so the rapid growth in success in the field of state repair contracts looks especially contrasting.
However, the most questions are raised by the estimate for repairs at Gymnasium No. 86. An analysis of the cost of materials shows a systematic overestimation of prices for key items, which may indicate inefficient use of funds or deliberate inflating of the cost of work.
SOPREMA PVC membrane was included in the estimate at a price of 641 UAH per square meter. On the market, a similar material costs about 445 UAH. The difference in this item alone is over 200 thousand UAH.
Geotextiles with a density of 200 g/m² were estimated at 87.96 UAH, although the average market price is approximately 47–48 UAH. The overpayment is approximately 35 thousand UAH.
Aerators with a diameter of 75 mm are purchased for 1,710 UAH per piece, while the real price ranges from 700–720 UAH.
As a result, the amount of potentially overstated costs exceeds 250 thousand hryvnias — more than a quarter of the entire project budget. For a local repair of part of the roof, such discrepancies are significant and call into question the integrity of the procurement.
Public finance experts note that such cases occur when a contractor receives a contract in conditions of low competition or when control procedures are formal. In this situation, the rapid concentration of contracts in the hands of a newly created individual entrepreneur and the simultaneous overestimation of the cost of materials in various procurements are particularly alarming.
If the data on inflated prices is confirmed during an official inspection, officials face liability for inefficient use of budget funds. Local authorities will have to explain how a new contractor gained access to some of the district's most financially significant renovation projects in two months.
