In September, ten tenders under Federal Law No. 223, announced on August 18, 2021, by the Moscow operator for solid municipal waste (SMW), the state unitary enterprise “Ekotehprom,” concluded. As a result, the winners will collectively receive approximately 230 billion rubles.
In return, they will be responsible for collecting and disposing of waste from all Moscow districts until the end of this decade. Experts see signs of collusion between participants and the customer during the bidding process and warn of a risk of unjustified tariff increases in the city.
What it’s about
“Ekotehprom” was appointed the regional operator for Moscow on May 13, 2021, until December 31, 2029. Its functions include organizing waste removal beyond the existing 15-year contracts signed in 2014, which mainly cover apartment buildings. In the tenders announced by Ekotehprom in August for all Moscow districts, no details were provided regarding the origin or destination of the waste. Apparently, the winners will have to follow the territorial waste management plan approved in December 2019.
According to this plan, by the end of 2029, Moscow will transport over 15 million tons of waste to the Kaluga region and about 9 million tons to the Vladimir region. The plan also notes that Moscow’s waste will be sorted and processed at 11 waste processing complexes in the Moscow region (including Yegoryevsk, Kashira, Kolomna, Roshal, and the villages of Khrabrovo, Yasenevo, Shemetovo, and Annino). Since 2022, waste was planned to be sent to four incineration plants in Naro-Fominsk, Solnechnogorsk, Voskresensk, and Noginsk (350,000 tons annually each).
In total, according to the agreement with the Moscow region, 3.4 million tons of waste from Moscow will be delivered there by 2030.
The highest initial maximum contract price was set for the Southern Administrative District – nearly 42.5 billion rubles, 28.3 billion for the Central District, and 25.8 billion for the Northern District. Details are shown in the table:
Who won: familiar faces
During the bidding, offers were submitted at the maximum price or with a minor discount, resulting in total contracts worth around 230 billion rubles. In each tender, only two participants submitted bids, some swapping positions or withdrawing.
This was the case for the most expensive tender in the Southern District and the tender for waste removal from the Troitsky and Novomoskovsky districts (10.3 billion rubles). Bids were submitted by “Modern Environmental Technologies Group” (“MET Group”) and “Kombinat.” The first participant lowered the price by 4 million rubles in the first tender and 2 million in the second. The second submitted a bid equal to the maximum contract price and naturally lost.
“Ecoline” is affiliated with GeoProMining founder and co-owner of “Shokoladnitsa,” Siman Povarenkin.
Examining the founders and CEOs of the companies shows overlaps. The same occurred in other tenders, with “Ecoline,” “City Transit,” and “MKM-Logistics” competing and swapping places. “City Transit” and “MKM-Logistics” shared a CEO. MKM-Logistics is part of the Ecoline group.
As a result, six companies won the tenders: “Ecoline” (total contracts – 54.1 billion rubles), “MET Group” (52.8 billion), “MKM-Logistics” (46.9 billion), “Khartiya” (38.6 billion), “MSK-NT” (22.9 billion), and “Spectrans” (13 billion).
Considering that MKM-Logistics belongs to Ecoline, the undisputed leader of Moscow’s waste market remains the same, securing contracts totaling over 100 billion rubles.
The company is affiliated with GeoProMining founder and Shokoladnitsa co-owner Siman Povarenkin. Second place goes to MET Group, owned by businessmen Andrey Burenkov and Kirill Popov, reportedly linked to Rostec. Third place belongs to Khartiya, owned by Igor Chayka, son of the Prosecutor General Yuri Chayka.
Signs of violations
Alexander Kulakov, chairman of the public organization STOPkartel and activist of the ONF Investigative Bureau, sees signs of collusion in the tenders.
“Only two participants submitted bids for each tender; some swapped positions and withdrew, submitting bids at the maximum price. This may indicate pre-planned actions among all participants to select tenders in which a specific participant would win,” he said.
According to the expert, detailed analysis suggests potential violations of Russian law (in particular, paragraphs 1–3 of part 1 of article 11, paragraph 3 of part 4 of article 11, and articles 10, 15–17 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ “On Protection of Competition”).
“These violations amount to limiting competition, coordinating participant activities by the tender organizer, creating preferential conditions for certain participants (e.g., through lot aggregation), maintaining the initial maximum price, and ultimately dividing the municipal waste management market in Moscow.”
Alexander Kulakov, chairman of STOPkartel
Kulakov believes these agreements could harm countless consumers and the customer’s budget, resulting in inflated waste disposal tariffs, including for budgetary institutions such as schools and hospitals.
“The pinnacle of lawlessness”
Sergey Krekov, leader of the “People’s Housing and Utilities” party, considers Moscow’s waste market the “pinnacle of lawlessness” in the city’s housing and utilities sector.
“Everything is upside down. The waste reform assumes the country pays either per square meter or per person. Research shows one-third pay per person, two-thirds per square meter. But Moscow is exempt – waste fees are not a separate line item but included in the ‘Maintenance and Operation’ tariff. In regions, the FAS strictly controls tariffs, but in Moscow, it cannot directly control or assess waste management under antitrust law. Only competitive procedures are evaluated. If there are no complaints, everything is considered fine,” he said.
Experts also question how contract prices were determined.
“There is no inflation index, rates, or understanding of how the volume of waste might realistically change. One must assume the figures were fabricated. The main idea of these tenders is to fix companies and the city’s obligations to them. The city effectively bears the burden. It’s a neat business scheme and a public mockery of common sense.”
Krekov believes contesting the tenders is almost impossible, as the FAS would need complaints from dissatisfied participants. Indeed, according to Octagon, at least one complaint from a legal entity reached the FAS central office, but since it did not submit a tender application, it was ignored.
