Participants in the procurement of services for deratization must have a license for disinfection indicating the address of the customer

18 December 2019, Wednesday

Participants of the electronic auction for the provision of services for systematic deratization at the objects of the state customer must – at the time of consideration of their applications by the auction Commission – not just have a medical license for disinfection, but also with the indication in the license of those specific addresses of activity that are specified in the terms of reference of the auction documentation.

This was pointed out by the courts, sorting out the dispute between the FAS and the ambulance station. The station decided to purchase deratization services, for which it held an electronic auction.

The auction was declared invalid, and all applications for it – do not meet the requirements: at the time of the auction, none of the participants had a license to work on disinfection at the address of the station building and its garage. By itself, the participants had a valid license for this medical activity.

One of the bidders complained to the FAS and the Antimonopoly body considered that his complaint was justified: at the time of consideration of its application could not be known whether he (the licensee) the winner of the procurement, and then, this issue has not yet signed a contract with the state, the legal grounds for renewal of the license of the participant of procurement no. This means that the requirement to have a license already reissued at the time of consideration of applications is illegal, because the place of activity and the place of provision of services are not identical.

However, the courts upheld the Station:

procurement participants are required to have a license to carry out medical activities in Disinfectology for all auction participants in accordance with article 31 of the Federal law No. 44-FZ of April 5, 2013 "on the contract system in the procurement of goods, works and services for state and municipal needs"; addresses and frequency of services are also defined;

according to part 1 of article 18 of the Federal law of may 4, 2011 No. 99-FZ "on licensing of certain types of activity" the license is subject to renewal in case of change of addresses of places of implementation by the legal entity of the licensed type of activity (except for activity on transportation of freights, passengers or other persons);

a part of the participant's application is only a copy of the license in which the address of the place where the licensed activity, work performed, services rendered is a different address than the address of the Station (note that the license is granted even in some other Russian Federation subject). Renewal of the license to implement medical activities at the Station at the time of the Commission's consideration of the customer second parts of the bids participants in the auction is not made;

having received the license, the licensee is not obliged to receive it again at change of the place of implementation of activity. However, until the license is reissued, the licensee shall not be entitled to carry out the licensed activity at the address not specified in the license;

consequently, the implementation of the subject licensed activity is not at the address specified in the license is a breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in such license, and indicates the inconsistency of the procurement participant with the requirements established by law to the persons engaged in the supply of goods, performance of works, rendering services for state and municipal needs;

the arguments of the FAS and the losing bidder that the license provides for the possibility of carrying out medical activities in disinfection on an outpatient basis are not taken into account, since this does not cancel the requirements of the current legislation in the field of licensing.

The Supreme court of the Russian Federation, having studied the complaint of the Federal Antimonopoly service of Russia, refused to review the case.

Document: Supreme Court Ruling No. 303-ES19-21514 of 13 November 2019

SUBSCRIBE FOR NEWS
All content on this site is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International