The company Just the right (JTR) has filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Service of the National Security Committee (ACS NSC) regarding the actions of the management of the National Agrarian Research and Education Centre (NAREC). The supplier is requesting an investigation into the refusal to accept three combine harvesters worth KZT 897.8 million, the demands to replace the equipment with John Deere, and the circumstances surrounding the commissioning of a third examination.
WHAT PROMPTED THE COMPLAINT
According to Polites News, the complaint was registered on 12 October 2026. The dispute concerns a public procurement contract that NAREC and JTR concluded on 16 April 2026. The contract provides for the supply of three fifth-class rotary combine harvesters with a total value of KZT 897.8 million including VAT.
According to the supplier, on 24 August the company delivered three SDMJ4500 combine harvesters to the village of Zarechnoye in Kostanay District. In September, the customer rejected the electronic acceptance certificate, and after the certificate was resubmitted, its review period was extended until 12 October.
JTR considers the equipment to be compliant with the contract and cites two expert opinions.
WHY THE SUPPLIER MENTIONS JOHN DEERE
According to JTR, NAREC management refers to a financial and economic justification (FEJ), which it describes as secret, and demands the supply of John Deere combine harvesters instead of the already delivered SDMJ4500.
The company is asking for an investigation into the content and legal status of the FEJ, to establish whether the document provided for a specific brand of equipment and whether the relevant requirements were known to the participants before the submission of bids. At the same time, JTR does not claim that the manufacturer John Deere or its representatives are involved in the alleged violations.
WHAT THE TWO EXPERT OPINIONS SHOWED
The complaint is accompanied by opinions dated 21 September 2026. In opinion No. 189, expert Argyn Iskakov stated that, based on the documentarily confirmed parameters, the characteristics of the combine harvesters are predominantly improved or functionally equivalent to the procurement requirements. At the same time, he noted that it was impossible to categorically assess certain characteristics without special technical testing.
In opinion No. 25, expert Nurbolat Zheksembayev also concluded that the equipment complied with the list of procured goods. However, there are discrepancies between the documents. In particular, the engine displacement is stated as 6.7 litres against a requirement of no less than 6.8 litres. In opinion No. 25, the rotor length is 2,683 mm against a requirement of 3,130 mm, and the upper limit of the fan speed is 1,250 rpm instead of the required 1,350 rpm.
WHY A THIRD EXAMINATION IS BEING COMMISSIONED
According to JTR's statement, the customer is initiating a third expert examination, and its representatives allegedly state in advance that the result will be favourable to the customer. The company is asking to identify the authors of such statements, to investigate the circumstances of the selection of the expert organisation and to establish on what grounds the new examination was commissioned.
The supplier does not claim that budget funds for the third expert examination have already been spent or that damage has been caused to the state. For the purposes of the investigation, it is asking for the decision commissioning the examination, the terms of reference, the estimate and documents on the source of funding to be requested.
WHAT MEASURES JTR IS ASKING TO BE TAKEN
The company is asking for an investigation into possible signs of offences under Articles 361, 362 and 365 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, including abuse of official powers, exceeding authority and unlawful interference in entrepreneurial activity. If there are lawful grounds, the supplier is asking for the information to be entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.
JTR also demands that the procurement documents, official correspondence, possible conflict of interest and the circumstances of the refusal to accept the goods be examined. The company claims that the delay is preventing the completion of payments and tying up working capital, but does not consider the contract value to be automatically the amount of damage.
CONTEXT
The situation around NAREC has already become the subject of public discussion in connection with issues of management and finance. In May 2026, the attention of the FRB was drawn to the A.I. Barayev Research and Production Centre for Grain Farming (RPCGF), which is part of the NAREC system. The publications examined the change of management, personnel decisions and changes in the work of the financial division.
