Rejection of applications in public procurement due to inaccurate information: case studies for 2022
What should the customer do if the parameters of the goods from the application do not match the data of the manufacturer's website? Should an application be rejected based on the manufacturer's letters? Should the information be considered unreliable if the manufacturer did not give an unambiguous answer about the compatibility of products with the customer's equipment? More in the review.
The parameters of the goods from the application are not the same as on the manufacturer's website.
Often the controllers receive complaints from the participants: the customer incorrectly determined the winner, since the characteristics of the goods from the application did not correspond to the data on the manufacturer's website. According to the participants, such an application should have been rejected for unreliability of the information.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the courts, which considered that there were no grounds for rejection:
- at the time of consideration of the application, the parameters of the goods met the conditions of purchase;
- Law N 44 does not oblige to check the application for compliance with the data on the Internet, in particular, due to the possible irrelevance of the information. Characteristics of goods on the websites of manufacturers and in other sources may change without notice to buyers.
The Orenburg and Kirov Departments of the Federal Antimonopoly Service noted that the data on the manufacturer's website are for informational purposes only. They cannot be used as irrefutable evidence of the unreliability of the information in the participant's application.
The characteristics of the products from the application contradict the manufacturer's letter.
Controllers are also complained about the unlawful rejection of applications based on letters from the manufacturer.
The Orenburg Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service supported the customer, who rejected the application for unreliable information on the basis of a letter from the manufacturer of the goods. He turned to the latter, since a number of participants offered the same product with different indicators of one parameter.
The Rostov Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service considered that the letter from the manufacturer of the goods did not prove the unreliability of the information. In the application, a medical device was offered and a registration certificate was attached to it. The manufacturer said: now the goods are not produced and are not supplied to the Russian Federation. However, this does not exclude the possibility of supplying products that were imported earlier, and does not indicate the unreliability of the information.
The manufacturer has not confirmed the compatibility of the product with the customer's equipment.
The Krasnoyarsk Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service found no reason to reject the application for unreliable information about the compatibility of the product with the customer's equipment. The latter turned to the manufacturer to confirm the compatibility of the product. He said that he could not do this, since the product from the application was not tested for compatibility. The customer decided that the participant provided false information, and rejected the application.
The controllers felt that this was not worth doing. It does not directly follow from the manufacturer's letter that the product from the application is not compatible with the customer's equipment.