Non-price criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of armaments and military equipment procurement for the National Guard of Ukraine

Abstract

The article substantiates a system of non-price criteria for evaluating armaments and military equipment procurement for the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU). The relevance stems from the systemic gap between regulatory provisions and actual procurement practice: while Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 363 provides for comprehensive evaluation methodology, 88.3% of defence procurement expenditure falls under simplified procedures where price is the sole criterion, and 75% of total procurement volume is conducted outside the Prozorro electronic system without any formalised evaluation mechanism. The study aims to substantiate the composition, relative weights, and implementation mechanism for non-price criteria in armaments and military equipment procurement for the NGU under martial law conditions. The methodology integrates military-economic analysis, comparative analysis of NATO procurement models (best value, MEAT, LCC), and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for determining criteria weights. The information base comprises BI Prozorro analytics, StateWatch and NAKO monitoring reports, Army PRO analytical materials, National Agency on Corruption Prevention research, Ukrainian regulatory acts (Cabinet Resolution No. 363, Cabinet Resolution No. 1275, Law No. 808-IX), NATO Life Cycle Costing standard (RTO-TR-SAS-069), U.S. Government Accountability Office reports, and the NATO-Ukraine Strategic Defence Procurement Review endorsed at the 2024 Washington Summit. The research established that Cabinet Resolution No. 363 contains an evaluation toolkit structurally comparable to best value (USA), MEAT (EU), and LCC (NATO) models, yet it remains unapplied due to the dominance of simplified wartime procedures. Empirical analysis revealed consequences of the price-only approach: NGU helmets procured at 25% above MoD prices, codified FPV drones priced 61% higher than equivalent non-codified alternatives, and UAV competitive procurement success rate of only 69%. A five-criteria system was developed: delivery speed (w = 0.30), life cycle cost (w = 0.25), combat needs compliance (w = 0.20), supplier reliability (w = 0.15), and procedural transparency (w = 0.10). Weights were determined using AHP with consistency verification (CR = 0.02). The scientific novelty lies in substantiating a non-price criteria system adapted to NGU institutional specifics and determining criteria weights through open data objectification. The practical significance consists in the possibility of direct incorporation of the proposed criteria into competitive procedure documentation under Cabinet Resolution No. 363, as well as into internal NGU procurement regulations without legislative changes.