Errors in public procurement notices: case studies for 2021-2022
Controllers punished customers for not including a number of information in the notice, corrected it late, and allowed discrepancies in the notice and the draft contract. Read about these and other situations in our review.
They forgot to include information about the object of procurement, access restrictions, instructions for filling out the application.
The Leningrad Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service indicated that the notice should contain the name, as well as the code of the catalog of goods, works and services or the all-Russian classifier of products by type of economic activity for each product supplied during the performance of work.
Customers who did not include instructions for filling out the application in the notice were punished by the Moscow Regional Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia.
The St. Petersburg and Dagestan Departments of the Federal Antimonopoly Service reminded that if there are prohibitions and restrictions on admission, information about them must be indicated in the notice.
Changes were made late or the application deadline was not extended.
Customers made mistakes when changing the notice of purchase. For example, they corrected it on the day of the deadline for filing applications (Sverdlovsk Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service) or did not extend this period after the changes were made (Moscow Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service).
Discrepancies were allowed in the notice and the draft contract.
The controllers repeatedly noted that the notice and the draft contract should not contain discrepancies. Thus, the antimonopoly authorities punished customers for different requirements:
- to ensure warranty obligations - Kursk Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service;
- ensuring the contract - Tatarstan Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service;
- term of the contract - Krasnodar and Astrakhan Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service.
Did not clarify the purchase notice or clarified it late.
The St. Petersburg Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service recognized the customer as the violator, who did not explain the notice at the request of the participant.
In another case, the Mari Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service considered it illegal to clarify the notice in the Unified Information System on the sixth day from the date of the request, although the document was posted on the electronic site on time.