FAS practice in the field of protective measures: review of the Agency's decisions
During the auction for the supply of cookware sets for equipping subject rooms under the Trud program within the framework of the federal project "All the best for children", the customer established the OKPD2 - 23.13.13.112 code "Dinnerware and kitchen utensils made of other glass" and provided for a restriction of access.
Of the 7 applications received, 5 contained registration numbers, two applications lacked numbers, and therefore the applications were rejected by the commission.
The FAS has established that:
- the OKPD2 code used by the customer is missing from Appendix No. 2 of Resolution No. 1875;
- OKPD2 was installed incorrectly by the customer, since it follows from the description in the TOR that the purchased product must have the OKPD2 code 25.99.12.112 "Dining room, kitchen and household products and their stainless steel parts".
When requesting quotations for the supply of support canes for the purpose of social security of citizens in 2025, a complaint was received.
The customer has set a restriction in the notification, since the code of the goods required for delivery is contained in Appendix No. 2 to Resolution No. 1875 (item 399). 3 applications were received for participation, 2 applications were rejected by the procurement commission. The applicant's application for the complaint was rejected by the commission on the following grounds: "Failure to provide information and documents provided for in the procurement notice: there is no information and documents confirming the country of origin of the goods (the number of the registry entry from the register of Russian industrial products or the certificate of origin (form ART. 1)." Another participant's application was rejected for a similar reason.
According to the complaint, the applicant proposed a foreign-made product as part of the application (the People's Republic of China); another participant, whose application was rejected, submitted a Russian-made product as part of the application without specifying the registration number; the participant proposed a Russian-made product under a different number and attached the necessary documents.
The FAS indicated that the applications of the participant who filed the complaint and the second supplier, whose application was rejected, should have been equal to applications containing an offer for the supply of imported goods. These applications were subject to rejection on the basis of paragraph 4 of part 12 of Article 48 of Law No. 44-FZ, and the customer mistakenly indicated the wrong reason for rejecting the applications.
In another case, the commission made a mistake when reviewing applications for the purchase of examination gloves. Having provided for a restriction on admission, the commission recognized all 5 applications as relevant requirements. At the same time, the FAS found that out of 5 applications, 4 applications, including the winner, indicated the country of origin of the goods "Russian Federation", but there was no registry entry. Only one application, the participant of which sent a complaint to the FAS, indicated the country of origin and the registration number.
Thus, 4 applications were unlawfully recognized as corresponding to the purchase notification instead of being equated to applications containing an offer for the supply of goods of foreign origin, since these applications do not contain the registration entry number from the register of Russian industrial products.