There is not a single district or community in Ukraine that is completely safe. Enemy drones and missiles reach almost everywhere. Yet Ukrainians continue to rebuild the facilities necessary for daily life: schools, hospitals, bomb shelters, and critical infrastructure. Sometimes, there are stories that are openly contradictory: repairs or construction work near the front line, which are destroyed again the very next day after the official opening. Yet even where projects are genuinely needed and justified on security grounds, the system malfunctions in their implementation.

In Natalynу community in Kharkiv region, construction of an underground protective shelter for a school was launched in 2023. According to the DREAM platform, it is still not complete. The project is being revised yet again, the budget is being reviewed, and new tenders are being announced. The cost of construction has risen significantly. A similar situation is in Podilsk, Odesa region. Initially, the protective shelter for the school was planned to be built at an agreed cost. However, during implementation, the design and cost estimate documentation had to be revised. The procurement was cancelled. A new one was then announced – this time with a higher cost. Similar examples can now be found in every region. We are not citing them to criticise or assign blame, but to highlight the systemic nature of the problem. And often it arises at the level of the client themselves. The community needs to build something. Funds are allocated for this. By old habit, the struggle to secure these funds is considered the most difficult task. But the hardest part, in fact, lies ahead.

As Lev Partskhaladze, President of the Confederation of Builders of Ukraine, explains, problems often arise even before work begins, at the stage when investment plans are developed.

‘When the initial idea for a project arises, the client identifies the need (for example, communities are currently actively planning the construction of protective shelters), draws up a rough budget and launches tenders for design, technical supervision, or engineering support. Therefore, the stage of formulating investment intentions (pre-project) is often decisive. But in the current circumstances, control can be lost at any stage of the implementation of the project.’

Yurii Hanushchak, an expert on the reform of local self-government and the territorial organisation of power, says that local governments conclude project agreements in line with the law on public procurement. The quality of these agreements depends on the level of competence of local government staff. Minor errors, inconsistencies or the lack of a thorough analysis of needs and technical specifications may therefore go unnoticed or appear insignificant at the planning stage.

The euphoria that the community will finally have the building or social facility it needs to survive can later turn out to be a cruel joke. Artem Bezuhlyi, Director of the state-owned enterprise “National Institute for Development of Infrastructure” believes that the mere going through the motions of procedures at the community level is a result of a lack of knowledge.

‘We lack a professional community of clients who understand how the construction process should be properly organised. And the clients are the most important factor… When a school principal wants to renovate or restore a school, they lack the necessary knowledge to set the right brief for the designer, how to conduct the procedure for selecting a design company, what the prices for materials are, and where to find them – because, as the client, they have to approve these prices. And I am not even mentioning the many technical issues and solutions involved.’

Moreover, according to expert Yurii Hanushchak, many communities at the basic level lack the institutional capacity to implement projects. Due to the lack of a professional team and experience, the construction or reconstruction process proceeds on an ad hoc basis, leading to a chaotic accumulation of problems that eventually become apparent and require a solution.

Lev Partskhaladze, President of the Confederation of Builders, also confirms the staffing problems.

‘A shortage of workforce may arise even whilst the work is in progress. This applies to both construction teams and engineers or other specialists on whom the implementation of the project and its proper engineering and consultancy support depend.’

The cost of the work is also affected by power outages, reliance on power generators, rising fuel prices, and disruptions to logistics. This necessitates changes to technical solutions, a review of the scope of work and cost estimates, the need to restart procedures, and a loss of coordination among those involved in the construction. And this is a matter of time, safety, and trust in decisions, which is particularly critical for grant funding. Therefore, communities are offered training for specialists in public finance management and investment activities.

Parallel to this, the central government is developing a new framework for cooperation using digital services. A database of prices for construction materials is under development, new rules for calculating wages in cost estimates are to be introduced, and approaches to project control and preparation are to be standardised.

Likewise, according to expert Yurii Hanushchak, ‘there is a mechanism for inter-municipal cooperation… such a tool does not implement the project, but performs the functions of its preparation.’

The goal is to leave behind the manual approach to construction and restoration. All of this is gradually being integrated into a single system of control and management that will align as closely as possible with international standards and practices. In such a system, complex infrastructure projects are rarely implemented in a model where the client is left to manage the entire process on their own.

The function of coordination, management and control is set aside separately right from the start of a project in European practice. This allows decisions to be agreed upon before work begins, enables a professional response to changes, helps avoid repeated adjustments, and ensures that deadlines and costs are kept under control.

Internationally, this coordination and management function is usually performed by companies that provide engineering and consultancy services.

In our context, this is evident in new project delivery models, such as “design-build”, which are gaining popularity in Ukraine.

Artem Bezuhlyi, Director of the National Institute for Development of Infrastructure, says, ‘In a “design-build” model, involving an engineering consultant is absolutely crucial.’

The reason is simple: in this model, design and construction are focused on a single contractor. This increases the demands on decision-making, cost control, and coordination of the entire process.

Nowadays, the state, together with international partners, is gradually changing the very logic of reconstruction: through digitalisation, new control rules, financial models, and stricter requirements for project development. But the tools themselves do not guarantee results. The decisive factor is whether the system is capable of operating not on an ad-hoc basis, reacting to each challenge as it arises, but holistically, with accountability for decisions, changes, timelines, and results. At this point, it becomes clear: old approaches can no longer cope with the complexity of modern reconstruction. It is precisely at this juncture that it is determined whether the project will be a managed process or yet another tale of delays, adjustments, and wasted time.