The argument about the rise in price of the goods did not help the winner to avoid the RNP for the delay in signing the state contract
The winner of the purchase for the supply of products did not sign the contract on time and did not provide collateral. The customer recognized him as evading and sent the information for inclusion in the RNP.
The winner explained that he was forced not to conclude a contract, because the prices of products have increased. He confirmed this with commercial offers with prices that were valid on the dates of the purchase and signing of the contract. The price of the product has become higher than he offered in the application.
The controllers were not convinced by this argument:
the winner formed the price offer himself, reducing it relative to the NMCC;
commercial offers do not prove the impossibility of fulfilling the contract. It would be possible to turn to other suppliers;
the purchase has an important social orientation — providing patients of a healthcare institution with food. Such provision cannot be made on time due to evasion from the conclusion of the contract.
The information was included in the RNP. It should be noted that in practice there is an example when a change in the prices of goods saved the winner of the purchase from the RNP.
Document:Decision of the Penza Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated 14.01.2022 N 058/06/104-39/2022