{"id":105735,"date":"2026-10-20T18:01:42","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T15:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedefender.media\/?p=105735"},"modified":"2026-10-20T18:09:35","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T15:09:35","slug":"general-cherry-dpa-tender-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedefender.media\/en\/2026\/10\/general-cherry-dpa-tender-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"General Cherry says it cannot deliver drones under the tenders it has won. What is the DPA’s response"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ukrainian drone manufacturer General Cherry<\/a> says it cannot conclude contracts for the four lots it won in the tender for fibre-optic drones. The lots cover 31,000 UAVs. The reason is the absence of regulatory documents governing the procedure, the company told Defender Media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DPA says General Cherry won several lots, but the process of concluding contracts is still underway. Defender presents the positions of the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conflict over the fibre-optic drone tender began last month. General Cherry accused the Defence Procurement Agency<\/a> of a lack of transparency and of unlawfulness in the tender, which the DPA conducted under a new procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under this procedure, the procurement is not for a specific model or brand, but follows a set of technical specifications. The agency said the Ministry of Defence, together with the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, military experts, and combat units, developed the specifications based on practical experience at the frontline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

General Cherry stated that the conditions “show signs of discrimination and may be written for a specific manufacturer”. According to the company, participants were given only four working days to prepare their proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
General Cherry challenges the legality of FPV drone tenders based on TS: arguments of the company and its opponents<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In the technical part of the tender, the company pointed to inconsistencies in the specifications: basic parameters (cruising speed, flight altitude, and take-off weight) were undefined, while other indicators were so narrowly defined that only a limited range of manufacturers could meet them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DPA stated at the time that Resolution No. 1275 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine allows a special defence procurement procedure and does not require disclosure of sensitive specifications, volumes, or the range of equipment. At the same time, participants had six calendar days to prepare documents, and the procurement team sent requests for proposals to around 2,500 verified manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, General Cherry filed a lawsuit, the court found the procurement lawful, and ruled that discrimination had not been proven. The court of appeal also confirmed the procurement procedure was lawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is being discussed now<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Judging by a new post from General Cherry, the tender took place, and the company won four lots. However, the manufacturer says it cannot conclude contracts for them. The problem stated is the absence of regulatory documents governing this procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“From the outset, we have not had a single document that would describe the process of conducting this procurement, or the delivery and implementation of the contracts. At present, we do not even understand the deadlines by which we are supposed to deliver,” the company said in a comment to Defender Media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The manufacturer says it cannot deliver 31,000 fibre-optic drones on time. Overall, the new procurement procedure has blocked the supply of 677,000 drones with radio and fibre-optic communication. The DPA announced a competitive procurement of radio-controlled FPV drones based on specifications in the second half of September.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n