The courts found out whether the equivalent and the subject of purchase under Law No. 223-FZ can have identical properties
Inspectors complained that the product was described for a specific manufacturer. The customer allowed the equivalent to be supplied only with identical parameters, but the analogue cannot match the properties of the subject of purchase. Instead of the ranges of the required values, they indicated that the equivalent is a product that is not inferior in characteristics to the parameters from the documentation.
The controllers ordered to eliminate the violation. Only a specific product has properties identical to the subject of purchase, they are always different for the equivalent.
The courts did not agree with the controllers:
the customer correctly described the subject of the purchase. In addition to the trademark and the model of the equipment, he indicated the necessary characteristics and allowed the delivery of an equivalent with parameters that should not be inferior to them;
the controllers misinterpreted the concept of "identical" as "exactly matching". The Ministry of Economic Development noted that identical goods are goods with the same basic characteristics characteristic of them;
the antimonopoly authority has not proved that it is impossible to put an equivalent in the disputed purchase;
the customer correctly determined the properties of the product taking into account their needs. Any participant could offer such products or those that are not inferior in characteristics.
It should be noted that a situation may be recognized as a violation when the customer allows the delivery of an equivalent, but does not indicate its possible characteristics. This allows you to arbitrarily reject applications due to non-compliance with the subject of the purchase.
Document: Resolution of the 5th AAC of 24.08.2022 in case N A51-1229/2022