In the public procurement with the project documentation, the equivalent of the goods was not indicated — the courts found a violation
The customer purchased works with project documentation. It indicated the goods of a specific manufacturer, but the ability to supply their equivalent in the purchase was not established.
The inspectors found a violation: if there is, in particular, a specific manufacturer in the project documentation, then in the purchase it is necessary to provide a condition on the possibility of supplying an equivalent product.
The courts of three instances supported this decision:
the absence of an equivalent condition violates the rules for describing the object of purchase. This may limit the number of participants with the ability to supply similar products;
the customer has not proved that the supply of goods from other manufacturers with the necessary characteristics interferes with the achievement of procurement goals or the implementation of design solutions.
Note that there is another approach in practice. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation supported the courts of two instances, which considered that it was possible not to specify an equivalent in the procurement with project documentation. They also took into account that the documentation with a certain manufacturer received a positive expert opinion. The indication of the manufacturer is necessary within the framework of a specific design solution and is related to the needs of the customer.
Document: Resolution of the Moscow District Administrative Court of 04.08.2022 on the case N A40-249637/2021