Courts: the breakdown of the EP key did not save the winner of the public procurement from the RNP
The winner of the purchase did not sign the contract on time and did not ensure its execution. The information was included in the RNP.
The winner explained that he did not want to evade:
the
delay was due to the breakdown of the EP key. He tried to get it again, but the key was issued after the deadline for signing the contract expired;
goods were purchased to fulfill the obligations.
The courts were not convinced by such arguments, since the winner:
I did not show care and prudence for the conclusion of the contract. The obligation to sign and secure the contract was already known on the day of the purchase results. The winner put it off until the last moment;
did not prove that for reasons beyond his control it is impossible to perform the duties;
failed to submit a security document;
submitted the invoice for the purchase of goods only to the court, but not to the control authority.
The Supreme Court did not review the case.
Note that in the practice of supervisors, there is another position. So, Ulyanovsk UFAS did not include the information in the CHP: the winner is unable to promptly resolve the problem with the EP, however, sent the customer a letter with a request to contract in paper form.
Arkhangelsk FAS Russia also found no grounds for RNP: inspectors submitted documents on payment of manufacture new EP, as well as invoices for the purchase of goods to a contract.
The Tatarstan Federal Antimonopoly Service took into account the documents on payment for the production of a new EP, as well as the security guarantee, and also did not include the data in the RNP.
Document:
Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.01.2021 in the case N A40-315157/2019