The Agency for Industrial Cooperation and Public Procurement has responded to Anhor.uz’s inquiry regarding procurement number 7081330 by the Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat (NGMK) for an audit of its procurement system and forensic evaluation of anti-corruption mechanisms. This inquiry was prompted by questions from the Association of Public Procurement Participants about the compliance of the winning bidder with established qualification requirements.
In April 2026, NGMK announced a procurement for a forensic evaluation for the year 2025. The winner was identified as Ernst & Young Advisory, which proposed to carry out the work for 1.16 billion sums, including VAT. One of the requirements in the technical specifications was that the contractor must be a current auditing organisation listed in the relevant register of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. The Association raised concerns about whether the winning company met this requirement, as Ernst & Young Advisory operates as a separate legal entity.
In response to the inquiry, the Agency stated that it would not consider conducting an audit of this procurement, citing existing regulations that stipulate that compliance with public procurement legislation and internal audits should be conducted by the relevant services of the state customer itself. The Agency recommended that inquiries regarding procurement number 7081330 be directed to the internal audit or compliance service of NGMK.
Regarding the legality of Ernst & Young Advisory’s participation in the procurement, the Agency did not provide a direct answer about the company’s compliance with the specific requirement of the technical specifications. Instead, it referred to provisions of the Public Procurement Law that regulate the requirements for participants and the responsibilities of the procurement commission. Specifically, the state customer and the procurement commission are responsible for ensuring that the procedure for determining the contractor complies with legal requirements, as well as for the justification and impartiality of decisions made.
The Agency’s response did not conclude whether Ernst & Young Advisory had the necessary status as an auditing organisation at the time of its participation in the procurement. The Association of Public Procurement Participants noted that merely having founders from an auditing organisation or belonging to an international network does not automatically confer the corresponding status to another legal entity.
When asked whether such circumstances were sufficient to meet the qualification requirements, the Agency referred to Article 36 of the Public Procurement Law, which outlines requirements for the participant’s resources, their right to enter into contracts, absence of tax debts, insolvency procedures, and being listed among unscrupulous contractors. However, the Agency’s response did not provide a direct assessment of Ernst & Young Advisory’s compliance with the requirement for the status of an auditing organisation.
The Agency also clarified that it lacks the authority to conduct internal or unscheduled audits of the procurement. According to Article 75 of the Public Procurement Law, state control in this area is carried out by the Accounts Chamber, the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Anti-Corruption Agency, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the Committee for Competition Development and Consumer Rights Protection. Consequently, the Agency refrained from providing a legal assessment of the disputed procurement and directed the inquiry to the internal audit or compliance service of NGMK.
