Is it possible to reject the application of a public procurement participant for an error in the name of a specific indicator

5 July 2021, Monday

The participant was not allowed to purchase, because he made a mistake in the name of a specific indicator: instead of width, he indicated height in the application. These characteristics are not equivalent. According to the instructions, specific indicators were required in the format: length, width, thickness. In this case, the "width" indicator is not presented. There are no grounds for admission of the participant.
The supervisors considered the refusal illegal:
when considering applications, it is impossible to be guided by the formal requirements for filling them out;
the application was declared non-compliant only on the basis of a contradictory interpretation of the instructions, although the information about the product correlated with the requirements from the description of the object of purchase and did not contradict it;
the purchasing commission could compare the characteristics of the goods from the participant's application with the indicators from the documentation.
In addition, during the proceedings, it turned out that in this case, height and width are actually the same parameter, since it is impossible to produce the goods otherwise. The names of the parameters are not of fundamental importance for the customer. The participant's product suits him according to its characteristics.
The courts supported the controllers: the
bid of the procurement participant allowed to accurately and reliably determine which goods were offered to be delivered;
the refusal of admission to participate in the purchase is formal. He limited the number of participants;
the products are suitable for the customer according to the parameters. Among other things, this is confirmed by the fact that he fulfilled the order of the controllers and signed a contract with the participant who filed the complaint.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the East Siberian District of 17.06.2021 in the case N A58-5959/2020