What errors in public procurement have the FAS revealed recently
The FAS explained what condition cannot be included in the bank guarantee, what to take into account when calculating the terms in the purchase, when the EP operator exceeds the authority, what consequences can occur if you do not comply with the instructions of the supervisors.
They demanded extra money in the security guarantee
The customer demanded to specify in the bank guarantee the condition on the jurisdiction of disputes.
The supervisors considered this a violation: the legislation on the contract system does not provide for such a requirement. The customer did not prove the validity of the condition.
Did not take into account the norm of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation when changing the notification
On December 10, the customer changed the notice of the auction in the EIS. At the same time, the last day for submitting applications for participation in it was December 11.
According to the FAS, the customer violated Law No. 44-FZ. According to it, you can change the notification no later than 2 days before the deadline for accepting applications. I.e., the customer could do this until January 9, inclusive. To correctly calculate the deadline, he had to take into account the rule of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on calculating deadlines.
Note that customers make similar mistakes when determining other deadlines. However, in practice, there is an example when the courts did not find violations when calculating the terms without taking into account the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Failed to comply with the order
The supervisors demanded to change the documentation in order to eliminate the violations. The customer did not do this and appealed to the court to appeal the order.
The FAS noted that an appeal against the order does not suspend the execution of it. Only a court can do that.
Went beyond the scope of authority
The participant of the purchase with additional requirements complained that the operator returned him the documents about the experience. The operator explained: among them was an unsuitable contract.
FAS supported the participant. The operator should check the completeness of the documents, and not evaluate the participant on them.
Documents:
Review of administrative practices in the field of placing orders for state agencies (January 2021)
Review of the practice of reviewing complaints in procurement under Law No. 44-FZ (December 2020)