Courts sorted out when it is not necessary to include information in the RNP for late signing of a state contract
The winner of the public procurement did not sign the contracts and did not provide their security on time. The customer recognized him as evading and sent information about this to the supervisory authority. Information included in the RNP.
The winner did not agree with this. The courts considered that he had no intention of evading the conclusion of a contract. They relied, in particular, on the following:
- contracts are not signed in a timely manner due to a failure on the Internet. Attempts to resolve the malfunction were made;
- the winner did not sign the contracts before the malfunction, because he could not know about this in advance;
- an objective opportunity to execute contracts was;
- the prices of the contracts are so small that the winner could hardly deliberately refuse to fulfill them and therefore allow the inclusion of information in the RNP;
- the winner is a regular participant in the procurement sector. He has a high degree of business reputation and there are no violations of the law on the contract system.
In this case, the courts considered that inclusion in the RNP was a disproportionate measure of responsibility.
The Supreme Court did not review the case.
Document: Definition of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated 05.28.2020 N 304-ES20-8161