The courts supported the state customer, who accepted medical equipment with parameters different from the technical specifications
The Treasury found violations in the purchase of medical equipment: overestimation of the initial maximum price of the contract and acceptance of goods with characteristics different from the contract, which led to additional costs.
According to the financial control authority, another model of equipment met the conditions for the purchase. The customer was obliged to replace the goods and return the overpayment to the budget.
Three instances disagreed with the Treasury:
- the received goods differed from the technical specifications for the better. The customer did not object to its acceptance. He wanted to purchase this particular product, but mistakenly indicated one wrong parameter in the purchase;
- the fact that one of the characteristics was indicated incorrectly does not mean that another model was purchased. This does not prove a violation of Law N 44 and overpricing. The customer justified the initial maximum price of the contract from the proposals for the goods he needed. He also accepted under the contract;
- equipment was purchased to provide a wide range of medical services. The product, which, according to the Treasury, met the terms of reference, did not have the necessary functions, unlike what was actually delivered.
It should be noted that it is possible to justify the initial maximum price of the contract using the market analysis method only from commercial offers for identical goods, and in their absence, for homogeneous ones.
In practice, there is an example when the Treasury imputed similar violations to the customer. The examination confirmed that the goods complied with the terms of the contract. However, the court agreed with the violation in the calculation of the initial maximum price of the contract. The customer could use the market prices of identical goods, but took the prices of homogeneous goods as a basis.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated October 26, 2022 in case N A74-6999 / 2021