For purchases of small volume under items 4, 5 and purchases of medicines under item 28 of part 1 of Art. 93 of Law N 44-FZ, the government decided to create a special information resource - a single aggregator of trade.
The operator of the electronic platform (the operator of a specialized electronic site) (hereinafter referred to as the operators) is entitled to charge a fee to the person with whom the contract is based on the results of the electronic procedure in an amount not exceeding 1% of the initial (maximum) contract price (but not more than 5 thousand) without VAT), and in case of concluding a contract for small business entities - in an amount not exceeding 1% of the initial (maximum) contract price and not more than 2 thousand rubles.
When holding a tender with limited participation, the commission rejected the application because it was not accompanied by an original bank guarantee confirming the security of the application. The participant appealed against her actions.
The customer forgot to establish a requirement to the participants that they should not be offshore companies. According to the FAS, such actions violate Law No. 44-FZ. For them, the customer's official can be held accountable. The amount of the fine is 3 thousand rubles.
The customer placed information about the purchase in the EIS. The notice was formed only with the help of the EIS functional, it was accompanied by documentation in electronic form. OFAS considered this a violation and fined the customer.
Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were adopted and published. They provide for criminal liability for abuse of public procurement and bribery of a contract service employee, a contract manager, a commission member.
The auction commission rejected the application of the branch. In her opinion, he could not participate in the purchase. The AC of the West Siberian District did not agree with this position.
The customer has established in the documentation the requirement that a number of items of the delivered goods must comply with certain technical conditions. It was also possible to put equivalent products.
The participant simultaneously submitted several applications for participation in electronic auctions. The customer rejected four of them because of identical deficiencies. Under Law No. 44-FZ, the operator of the electronic site transferred to him the amount of security for the last application.
In the documentation for the purchase, the customer specified certain items to which the supplied spare parts should correspond. The antimonopoly authority considered this to be a restriction of competition and a violation of Law No. 44-FZ.