The Federal Antimonopoly Service: in the construction public procurement, the requirement for contributions to the damage compensation fund can not be specified
The participant of the construction purchase complained that the customer incorrectly set the condition for membership in the SRO: in the documentation there is a requirement for contributions to the fund for ensuring contractual obligations, but there is no requirement for contributions to the damage compensation fund.
The inspectors found the complaint unfounded: the damage compensation fund is needed to become a member of the SRO. The requirement for documentation of membership in the SRO implies that the participant has made a contribution to this fund. In addition, in the form of an extract from the register of such organizations, there is information about contributions to both funds.
Some courts and antitrust authorities take a different position. For example, FAS in the decision of 25.03.2021 and in the decision of 21.08.2020, Khakass UFAS, 9th AAS.
Document:
Decision of the Penza Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia of 24.03.2021 N 058/06/106-248/2021