A participant in the purchase of medical supplies complained that the customer described the object of purchase for a specific manufacturer. There is no possibility to supply alternative products.
The customer confirmed this. Among other things, he justified this by saying that the purchased product (its active substance):
• used for the treatment of complex diseases, so you need high-tech equipment;
• used by the customer many times and proved its effectiveness;
* needed for certain categories of patients, including those in critical condition.
In addition, the following arguments were given:
• product parameters from the technical task will provide the necessary clinical effect;
• the specifics of the Department for which the product is purchased is of an emergency nature and if the treatment is not appropriate, there may be fatal outcomes;
* the analog that the participant points to is not the same. It is inefficient and unsafe.
The bidder, in turn, made the following arguments:
• there is a domestic analog on the market that has better characteristics than the purchased products. Its price is much lower;
• the active substance in the purchased product is not safe for severe patients, as well as for certain categories of patients. This is stated in the instructions for medical devices;
• this alternative product is allowed for use in medical practice. This is stated in the decision of Roszdravnadzor.
The control authority indicated: although the customer's need is a determining factor in the formation of the purchasing object, its description should not limit competition. There must be at least 2 relevant manufacturers on the market. In this case, there was an analog of the product.
The FAS decided that certain products were needed for ease of use by medical staff. And this can't be the basis for purchasing a product from a specific manufacturer
The complaint was found to be justified.
Document: decision of the Perm UFAS of Russia from 09.04.2020