flarione.ru → Investment

Lipnitsky Taras Valerievich biography. Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard

In the first part of the article “Procurement in the defense industry - “discussion” of current topics interested parties» the main directions of the reports of the participants in the first part of the second All-Russian conference “Procurement in the Defense-Industrial Complex” were presented, which was visited by the head of the VPK.name project Andrey Labutin. I recommend reading the first part to those who are interested in the opinions of government officials and industry on the following issues:

Pricing when executing state defense orders -
Legislative regulation and methodological support procurement when concluding complex contracts, contracts within the framework of cooperation and the formation of supply chains -
Technologies, methods and tools for planning, conducting and monitoring procurement.

In this part, I would like to show you the conference “Procurement in the Defense-Industrial Complex” not through the eyes of government representatives, not through the eyes of industry, and not even through the eyes of the media...

The first suspicion that something is going wrong I got it after I noticed an adult, respectable man sitting in the hall, who was constantly drinking water and talking on the phone. He apparently did this not so quietly, because the people in the row in front of him periodically turned around, which did not bother the respectable gentleman.

After that, I began to observe the audience present at the conference; naturally, I could only do this in visual visibility relative to my sitting position from the right sector (there were three sectors in total - left, right, middle).

A girl sat in front of me, who did not get out of her tablet in search of a dress. Behind us, two men were having a lively, rather quiet conversation about the previous evening. And so on…

As a result, I began to estimate the approximate number of people in each row that I saw, the number of people who were of little interest in the topic of discussion. According to my estimate, in the right sector the number of such people was about 30% of the total number present. I can’t vouch for other sectors, but I believe that the right sector did not contain “selected” people. There should have been significantly fewer such people in the central sector, since they were more visible, there were a lot of photo and video cameras from the media nearby, and people sat there who most likely wanted to be closer to the conversation.

Second suspicion that something is wrong appeared after the audience responded with silence to Oleg Bochkarev’s proposal to ask questions, if any. There was no silence in the hall, but there were no questions either. A logical question arose: why did you all come then?

Oleg Ivanovich pushed the situation forward with the usual provocation, which, oddly enough, worked. The phrase “they are just afraid” slightly pushed people from the front rows of the central sector. The set of questions essentially repeated the thoughts of the earlier speakers.

Choice.

I admit that I am one of the very few people present at the conference who are interested in the topic of the military-industrial complex or work in the military-industrial complex, understand the principles of pricing and, before arriving at the conference, had only the “Conference Plan” in hand.

The point is that after finishing general meeting and exchange of opinions, the audience had to be divided into thematic sections. Visitors and participants were offered the following topics in sections:

Pricing - features of pricing by type of procurement -
Tools and technologies - experience and prospects for using procurement management tools and technologies -
Cooperation - features of cooperation by type of cooperation -
Modernization and innovation - features of the procurement of innovative, knowledge-intensive and high-tech products, works and services in the interests of the defense industry.

Even before the start of the conference, I decided that I would go for pricing, because before the start of the conference I was sure that the key to the problem lay precisely in the disagreements within this process.

However, after attending the opening general discussion, I changed my priorities, as two main issues came to the forefront of the conversation:

There are inconsistencies in the legislation, and there was no such section separately -
Problems of cooperation and the presence of small and medium-sized businesses in it.

I would like to note that for me this became third and fourth suspicions that something is going wrong. The fact is that the choice was very difficult for me. The topics of the sections were so interconnected that it seemed to me that the exclusion of one could not compensate for the presence in the other. The only way out of the situation was to attract at least three representatives from each structure of the military-industrial complex, so that they could be present at most of the key sections (I included the Tools and Technologies section as not key for myself).

As I noticed later, a number of participants did just that, but even their cursory exchange of opinions (at lunch break) on the work in the sections showed how different their views on the subject were, and therefore their perceptions of the topic under discussion, and the level of training of specialists from the same enterprise.

Constructive!?

One way or another, the choice has been made and I’m in the Cooperation section.

The moderators of the section were the Chairman of the procurement committee in the defense industrial complex NP "NAIZ", director of the financial department technical support JSC "USC" Taras Valerievich Lipnitsky and expert in the field of regulated procurement Dmitry Galka.

In order to indicate the vector of discussion, Taras Lipnitsky immediately took the floor, outlining a number of parameters of the USC in the field of defense industry and using this example, showing what, in fact, is to be organized:

USC sales structure: State Defense Order – 65%, Military-Technical Cooperation – 21%, Citizen – 16%-
First level cooperation – 90% monopolists-
Depth of cooperation - up to 8 levels -
Complexity – there is both forward and backward cooperation.

The main issues of the section were issues of working under contracts for the entire life cycle of products, difficulties of cooperation in the context of legal requirements and discussion of the wording of legislation in the field of procurement.

The issue was discussed for quite a long time, and there was a separate report on this topic by a representative from the Synapse-MSK company, the choice of legislation for working under the conditions of contracts of the entire life cycle.

Two options were proposed for condemnation - the concession law and the law on life cycle in the key of involving the state and the Ministry of Defense at various stages of financing and lobbying for logistics, as well as the reconstruction of industrial facilities with the participation of the state.

Fifth suspicion that something is going wrong it came out clearly and obviously when, during the discussion, one of the participants asked a question - do we have representatives of the Ministry of Defense here in the audience? No one raised their hands, after which the audience made the essentially correct conclusion that the discussion boils down to the development of some possible designs for solving difficulties through the eyes of industrialists, without multilateral discussion.

Further discussion revealed that out of all the speakers, and there were 3 of them (see Lipnitsky), only one, Taras Lipnitsky, worked at enterprises related to the state defense order and secret security in particular. In this regard, enterprises have repeatedly made proposals for speakers and drafters of laws to come to the enterprise in order to try to implement them, as a pilot project, at some enterprise before introducing the proposed procedures into the law.

The sixth suspicion that something is going wrong In fact, there was an extremely narrow circle of people who participated in the discussion of problems, which confirmed the inconsistency of the proposed conference format and the selection of the audience.

The seventh point of understanding what is going wrong I realized that the section I attended required a separate article that would reveal the full essence of the options and difficulties being discussed. And this article cannot be written by the media and even the participants. Such an article can only be born through the joint efforts of the moderators and the section speakers. But we won't see such an article...

And the last point of understanding that something is going wrong became a phrase uttered in the hall by one of the information partners on the phone, to one of his colleagues, that he was at the All-Russian conference “Procurement in the Defense-Industrial Complex”, but could speak right now, since it was not so noisy. Indeed, in the country there are more than 1000 military-industrial complex enterprises, many interested government agencies and ministries, but it feels like there is no good half of the industry, and not just any specific enterprises, but entire industries... But besides them, the conference would be extremely interesting for representatives of medium-sized businesses, existing on the market for more than one or two years and having a good reputation and assets that allow them to work with the military-industrial complex.

What didn't the program provide?

As I left the magnificent Lotte Hotel Moscow building, I wondered if I had missed something important that was in the other sections. Of course, I could not answer this question for myself, simply because I could not know exactly what questions and in what key they were actually raised.

The most interesting thing is that in the “Conference Plan”, which I had in my hands, there is a list of topics for each section, but as the section showed Cooperation, the information provided is clearly not enough even to clearly identify the person who should go, so that he can take an active part in the discussion of the topics raised and provide living examples to confirm his words or refute the assumptions made.

Moreover, in my opinion, the constrained and, in fact, barely lively discussion that I happened to observe at the section on Cooperation is a consequence of the same incomplete information of the conference participants before arriving at “Procurement in the Defense-Industrial Complex.”

“What a good help in resolving many issues of preparation for the conference would be the presence of presentation slides in the Appendices to the “Conference Plan”,” I thought. This would make it possible to understand the main essence of the report, prepare constructive questions, comments, suggestions, and most importantly, send to the section of the second All-Russian conference “Procurement in the Defense-Industrial Complex” exactly the person who will show the picture of the ore. From every enterprise, government agency, regulatory body...

Conclusions.

Despite all my suspicions, the proposed conference format is certainly very relevant, in demand and promising. Understanding how difficult it is to get industry and government into a direct and open conversation, the conference showed that with correctly posed questions that affect the interests of all parties, such a frank dialogue between the parties is still possible. And this is a HUGE PLUS of the second All-Russian conference “Procurement in the military-industrial complex.”

Another undoubted advantage is the organization and coordination of the process of holding the conference itself. The selection of the venue, which I, to be honest, at first classified as a “show-off” accompanying the necessary status of the event, was determined by minimizing free time between the first part and the second. The technical capabilities of the Lotte Hotel Moscow halls, designed for very quick transformation for a different number of participants while providing the required equipment and sound insulation, allowed us to spend only 30 minutes on preparing the audiences for different sections, which took a coffee break.

The only thing that let us down was the preliminary work preparing for the conference. In my opinion, if the conference continues to assume the format of mutual exchange of views at the conference, then the preliminary preparation stage requires a different approach:

Harmonious selection target audience. In this case, by target audience I mean the circle of enterprises and structures that the organizers see as companies and structures with which they would definitely like to conduct a dialogue in order to hear each other. By harmonious selection of audience I mean choosing the target audience and ensuring the presence at the conference of all structures whose participation, in the opinion of the organizers, is necessary to obtain a high-quality result from the discussion at the event -
Thorough preliminary work with the target audience. Most likely, it is better to send invitations to such companies and organizations in advance to discuss specific issues specifically for them, which should already be presented in the letter. It is advisable to attach to the letter printouts or electronic versions of presentations from moderators and participants with whom they will speak at the conference. This will allow the target audience to prepare more seriously
Attracting a larger number of participants from interested structures to the event. Before the conference, on the event website and through information partners, distribute conference materials, key questions and articles from section moderators and section speakers about what will be discussed in the sections. This will require a change in the approach to the report, since the presentation itself will already be known to the audience, but it will allow the speaker to devote more time to details, nuances and features, and the audience to devote more time to discussion -
Publication of the final document based on the results of the conference from the organizers -
Organizing feedback and involving a wide audience in the issues discussed. Mandatory preparation by organizers, moderators and speakers of articles about their views on the progress of the conference, achieved results and open questions, proposals for improving the conduct of events.

Project Manager VPK.name

The minesweeper "Yakov Balyaev" is a Russian mine defense ship, the fifth ship of Project 12700 "Alexandrite". Built by the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard for the needs of the Russian Navy. The ship belongs to a new generation of mine-sweeping forces and is designed to combat mines, which the new PMO ship can detect both in sea waters and in sea soil, without entering the danger zone. To combat mines, the ship can use various types trawls, as well as remote-controlled and autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicles.

Mine defense ship "Ivan Antonov"

The mine defense ship “Ivan Antonov” of Project 12700 “Alexandrite” was built by the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard for the needs of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Designed to search and destroy mines in the waters of naval bases at a distance safe for the ship. The ship has a unique hull made of monolithic fiberglass, formed by vacuum infusion. A special feature of the vessel is that the hull was originally designed for the possibility of constructing patrol or auxiliary vessels on its basis. for various purposes for military and civilian customers. Home port is the city of Sevastopol.

Mine defense ship "Vladimir Emelyanov"

Mine countermeasures ship, side number 659, "Vladimir Emelyanov" - the fourth ship of project 12700, code "Alexandrite" and the second serial minesweeper, designed to search and destroy mines in the waters of naval bases on safe distance. Built by the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard. Designed by the Central Marine Design Bureau "Almaz". To combat mines, the ship can use various types of trawls, as well as remote-controlled and autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicles. A special feature of the project is that the hull was developed for the possibility of constructing patrol ships or auxiliary vessels for various purposes for both military and civilian customers. The ship is named in honor of the Hero of Socialist Labor, director of the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard in 1962-1974, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Emelyanov.

Mine defense ship "Alexander Obukhov"

The mine defense ship BT-730 "Alexander Obukhov" is a basic minesweeper of Project 12700, code "Alexandrite", designed to search and destroy mines in the waters of naval bases at a distance safe for the ship. Designed by the Central Marine Design Bureau "Almaz" for the needs of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy. Built at the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard. A special feature of the project is that the hull was initially designed for the possibility of constructing patrol ships or auxiliary vessels for various purposes for both military and civilian customers. To combat mines, the ship can use various types of trawls, as well as remote-controlled and autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicles. Home port is the city of Baltiysk.

“The distribution certificate was not issued to the films “Moms-3” by Georgy Malkov and Emil Nikoghosyan and “Taras Bulba” by Vladimir Bortko, as well as the television series “Flint” and “Kremin-2” by Vladimir Epifantsev and Alexander Anschutz,” the Ukrainian State Cinema Committee reported in its account. Facebook on Monday Earlier it was reported that the film "Moms-3", which will be released on the screens of the Russian Federation and CIS countries on the eve of the New Year, was refused film distribution in Ukraine...

Incidents | 2019-06-14 18:07:35

The founder of the Korchma chain, Taras Bulba, pleaded guilty to tax evasion

The founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba chain, Yuri Beloivan, said in the Basmanny Court of Moscow on Friday that the Federal Tax Service wants to recover 1.2 billion rubles from him...

The appeal agreed with the legality of additional taxes accrued to Uralkali. According to the investigation, in the period from January 2011 to March 2014, Beloivan for the purpose of evading taxes from eight organizations controlled by him, carrying out restaurant activities under the trademark "Korchma...

Incidents | 2019-07-04 11:32:38

The founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba chain was sentenced to two years in prison

The Basmanny Court of Moscow sentenced the founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba chain, Yuri Beloivan, to 2 years in a general regime colony in a case of tax evasion, a PROFI correspondent reports News from the courtroom...

Incidents | 2019-07-04 12:18:52

The defense is appealing the verdict of the founder of the Korchma chain Taras Bulba

The defense of the founder of the Korma Taras Bulba network will appeal the court decision sentencing Yuri Beloivan to real time for non-payment of taxes, lawyer Alexander Karabanov told reporters...

According to investigators, in the period from January 2011 to March 2014, Beloivan, with the aim of evading taxes from eight organizations controlled by him, carrying out restaurant activities under the trademark "Korchma Taras Bulba",...

Incidents | 2019-10-02 01:15:53

The Moscow City Court on Wednesday will consider the appeal of the defense of the founder of the Korma Taras Bulba chain, Yuri Beloivan, against the verdict for tax evasion, reported PROFI News in court...

According to investigators, from January 2011 to March 2014, Beloivan, in order to evade paying taxes from eight organizations controlled by him, carrying out restaurant activities under the trademark "Korchma Taras Bulba", organized the practice of paying...

Incidents | 2019-10-02 15:51:30

The Moscow City Court commuted the sentence of the founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba chain

The Moscow City Court commuted the sentence of the founder of the Korma Taras Bulba network, Yuri Beloivan, by three months, who had previously received 2 years in prison for tax evasion, a PROFI News correspondent reports from the courtroom...

Incidents | 2019-11-05 16:31:04

The court freed the convicted founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba restaurant chain

The Preobrazhensky Court of Moscow released the founder of the Korchma Taras Bulba restaurant chain, Yuri Beloivan, from pre-trial detention center due to illness, court press secretary Alisa Zakutnyaya told PROFI News...

Fast general director The Northern Shipyard has remained vacant for six months now. At the shareholders meeting held on Friday, the candidacy of the head was rejected. The only candidate for the position was Yuri Taratonov, acting general director since the end of January this year. According to experts, the new management of USC will soon decide on the candidacy of the future director of the shipyard.

On Friday, the annual meeting of shareholders of Severnaya Verf Shipyard OJSC, part of the state United shipbuilding corporation(USC). During the meeting, it was planned to confirm the position of the general director of the enterprise. The only candidate was Yuri Taratonov, acting head since the end of January this year. As Kommersant learned, as a result of a vote of shareholders, Mr. Taratonov was not approved as general director and will retain the prefix “acting.” for the near future. USC refrained from commenting on the outcome of the vote. Kommersant's interlocutors in the shipbuilding industry believe that, most likely, the corporation has not yet found a suitable candidate for the position of head of the Northern Shipyard. On June 5, USC officially appointed a new president - Deputy Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Alexey Rakhmanov. Experts believe that the new management of the corporation needs time to find a new general director of the Northern Shipyard.

Mr. Taratonov, who previously held the position of chief engineer of the enterprise, was appointed acting general director on January 24 of this year instead of Alexander Ushakov, who was under investigation. According to investigators, he entered into an agreement with Sameta Tax and Legal Consulting LLC, according to which lawyers were to participate in the proceedings taking place in arbitration court Moscow, where the Northern Shipyard appealed the claims of tax authorities totaling about 1 billion rubles. As a result, the tax authorities' claims were dropped. However, the investigation believes that the lawyers of the company itself won the claim, and the money was simply written off to their colleagues: in 2012, Sameta was paid 38 million rubles.

Northern Shipyard is one of the largest Russian shipbuilding enterprises. The order portfolio of the shipyard, which also builds frigates and corvettes as part of the state defense order, is about 200 billion rubles. According to SPARK-Interfax, the net loss of the Northern Shipyard in 2012 amounted to 1.7 billion rubles, and according to the results of three quarters of 2013 it decreased to 934.5 million rubles. The company performs up to 75% of all Russian program surface shipbuilding. In September 2012, USC became the main shareholder of Northern Shipyard, purchasing 75.82% of the company's shares for 12.45 billion rubles and accumulating 96.78% of the shares in its management.

In addition, at the last meeting of shareholders there was an almost complete change in the composition of the board of directors. Alexander Voznesensky (ex-general director of Baltic Shipyard LLC), Sergey Gaidarzhi (vice-president of USC), Sergey Kurasov (deputy director of the department of shipbuilding industry and marine equipment of the Ministry of Industry and Trade), Taras Lipnitsky (director of the procurement management department) were relieved of their positions as members of the board of directors. activities of USC), as well as Olga Oskina (Director of the Department of Finance of USC). USC Vice President Valery Bindas and USC Military-Technical Cooperation Department Director Alexey Dikiy remain on the new board of directors of the shipyard. The new members of the council are the director of the USC state defense procurement department Anatoly Shlemov, the deputy director of the USC property management department Yan Karev, the deputy head of the management department procurement activities USC Vasily Zhidkov, another USC representative Irina Tarakanova, as well as Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy for Armaments, Rear Admiral Viktor Bursuk.

Experts state that the board of directors is a formal body and in the case of Northern Shipyard, which is part of USC, its members can influence little.

IN lately The Northern Shipyard is becoming a frequent target of inspections. Yes, in May audit commission Northern Shipyard checked the financial and economic activities of the enterprise and stated that the reporting for 2011 and 2012 was unreliable, and the distortions involved amounts of billions of rubles. Then the commission recommended that the company’s board of directors contact law enforcement agencies. According to Kommersant's information, there was no corresponding reaction.

Kristina Naumova