Did not have time to sign the state contract due to a failure on the Internet-the argument did not help the participant to avoid the RNP
The winner didn't sign the contract on time. He explained that he did not want to evade, because:
there was no internet connection during the contract period. This was confirmed by a letter from the landlord of the premises in which the winner operated;
the security guarantee is received in advance;
after he was found to have evaded, he received verbal approval from the customer to conclude the contract and sent an appeal to the FAS to agree on this possibility;
the winner is a regular participant in the procurement. He has a high business reputation.
The supervisors did not consider these reasons valid, because during the signing of the contract, the winner:
I was able to participate in another purchase;
I did not inform the customer that it was impossible to sign the contract on time.
The information was included in the RNP. The courts supported this decision. They noted the following:
In the letter, the landlord confirmed that there was no Internet connection during the signing of the contract. However, he warned tenants in a few days about a possible failure due to technical work;
the winner knew that the failure could happen, but attempts to sign the contract were only at the end of the working time of the last day allotted for this. He didn't show any care or prudence;
the contract and the specification for the purchase of goods do not prove the intention to conclude and execute this particular contract. The products were purchased 3.5 months before the results of the purchase were summed up. These documents are submitted only to the court, but not to the supervisory authority;
obtaining a security guarantee without a signed contract does not prove the winner's good faith.
It should be noted that in practice there is an example when a failure on the Internet was considered by the courts as a valid reason for missing the deadline for signing a contract.
Document: Resolution of the Administrative Court of the Volga-Vyatka District of 24.02.2021 in case N A17-990/2020