FAS practice under Law No. 44-FZ: what mistakes were noted by the service in the reviews for September 2024
FAS practice under Law No. 44-FZ: what mistakes were noted by the service in the reviews for September 2024
Government customers established an incorrect assessment procedure, illegally rejected applications for exceeding the total amount of obligations for the SRO level and combined work on unrelated facilities into one lot.
Incorrect evaluation order
When purchasing passenger transportation services, applications were compared, among other things, according to the indicator "Availability of material resources". The highest score was given to the one who had more buses.
The supervisors recognized the evaluation procedure as unfair, since it did not take into account the number of buses sufficient to fulfill the contract. The availability of the required amount of resources did not guarantee that the participant would be awarded points for the disputed indicator.
Another customer used a detailed indicator "The total price of executed contracts" when evaluating qualifications. The maximum minimum value of the characteristic was 500% NMCC.
The FAS and the courts considered this value incorrect. It did not allow those who had experience of similar work in the amount of NMCC to receive points on the indicator.
Rejection of an application for exceeding the total amount of obligations for the SRO level
The participant was suspended from the construction purchase for exceeding the actual aggregate amount of obligations for the 3rd level of the SRO. The customer made this decision after checking the total value of the contracts executed by the participant and its price offers for other purchases.
The FAS and the AC of Moscow decided that the customer had gone beyond his authority. The SRO itself monitors the ratio of the size of the compensation contribution and the obligations assumed by the participant.
Combining unrelated works into one lot
The customer purchased a complex of design, survey and construction works at 3 different facilities: a distribution substation, water supply networks and a gas pipeline.
The inspectors considered that the object of purchase limited competition, since the works did not have homogeneous characteristics and did not have a functional (technological) connection. In addition, a large lot imposed an additional personnel and financial burden on the performer.