The state customer included in one lot works on the maintenance of roads in different areas — the courts did not support him
A participant in the procurement for the maintenance of highways complained about the illegal enlargement of the lot. It included work on two roads in different municipal districts of the region, although they could carry out separate purchases.
The customer explained: the works on two roads were combined into one lot to ensure high-quality and uniform execution. They fell under the category of road maintenance, and were also technologically and functionally related to each other and to the object of purchase.
Supervisors and courts did not support the customer:
the roads were not connected. They were located far from each other in different municipal districts and had different identification numbers, which made it possible to separate them into separate procurement objects. A statement of the volume and cost of work was developed separately for each road;
the enlargement of the lot limited the competition. A large amount of technical, human and financial resources were required from the participants. This displaced small businesses that could not master a large lot or provide contract enforcement.
Similar conclusions were reached, in particular, by the AC of the Ural District. Note that in practice there is another opinion.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the Far Eastern District of 12/21/2022 in case N A59-6809/2021v