Courts: the state customer cannot arbitrarily apply the limit values of indicators to assess experience
Supervisors complained about the illegal procedure for evaluating experience. For the indicator "Total price of executed contracts", the maximum limit value of the characteristics of the object of purchase was set at 50% of the NMCC. According to the applicant, participants with work experience for a large amount were equated to less experienced persons.
The FAS considered the evaluation procedure biased. Three instances agreed with her:
- The evaluation provision allows setting maximum or minimum limits for quantitative indicators, if necessary. The customer did not explain why he needed to use such a limit value. The experience of executing a contract with a price equal to NMCC was comparable;
- all participants with contracts that have a price of 50% NMCC and above will receive 100 points for this indicator. But their experience is very different, the assessment cannot be the same;
- a controversial evaluation procedure does not reveal the best offer. It puts participants with different amounts of work performed on an equal footing. To win in such conditions, the most experienced participant will have to lower the price.
In practice, there are examples when an overestimation of the maximum limit value of the indicator was recognized as a violation without justification. This was pointed out, in particular, by the Dagestan and Ivanovo UFAS.
It should be noted that in some cases, supervisors did not find violations when customers justified a certain limit value of the indicator (for example, they provided market analysis data). This conclusion was reached, in particular, by the Yakut and St. Petersburg UFAS.