FAS practice under Law No. 44-FZ: Customer errors in the March 2025 review
The Federal Antimonopoly Service has identified several typical mistakes of customers when conducting purchases under Law No. 44-FZ. Let's look at them in more detail.
Incorrect description of the purchase object
1. Lack of key characteristics: The customer held an auction for the supply of medical products — anti-decubitus systems with an inflatable mattress. The description of the purchase object did not specify the length and width of the mattress, which prevented the participants from correctly calculating the price offers. The FAS fined the customer's official 3,000 rubles (Resolution of the FAS of Russia dated 03/07/2025 in case No. 28/04/7.30-1823/2024).
2. Manufacturer-specific description: Another customer purchased a dummy simulator and used the parameters of a specific model to describe the purchase object. The FAS recognized the product description as illegal, as it was formed for a single manufacturer. The proof of the violation was that all the participants in the purchase offered a simulator from the same company (Decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated 03/04/2025 in case No. 28/06/105-1894/2025).
Biased procedure for evaluating applications
When assessing qualifications, the customer applied the indicator "The highest price of one of the executed contracts". The maximum limit value of the characteristic was 56% NMCC. The FAS considered the evaluation procedure to be biased, as participants who executed large contracts were equated with less experienced individuals. This contradicts the principles of the contract system, since it does not allow to identify the best offer (Resolution of the FAS of Russia dated 03/18/2025 in case No. 28/04/7.30-1983/2025).
Unjustified refusal of admission
An auction participant for the construction of a linear facility was suspended for non-compliance with additional requirements. The customer considered that the application contained an incomplete set of documents to confirm the qualification — it did not contain a permit for the commissioning of the facility. However, the FAS recognized the rejection of the application as illegal, since the participant provided the registration number of the contract for comparable work, and the customer could find the necessary documents in the Unified Information System (Decision of the FAS of Russia dated 03/20/2025 in case No. 25/44/99/52).
These examples highlight the importance of careful preparation of documentation and compliance with all legal requirements when conducting procurement.