FAS practice under Law No. 44-FZ: what mistakes were noted by the service in the reviews for May 2025
Customers incorrectly formed the lot when they combined work at facilities with no connection into one purchase. They also established universal prequalification instead of additional requirements and rejected applications without grounds. Read more in the review.
Incorrect lot formation
According to the terms of the purchase with additional requirements, the contractor should have carried out major repairs of 5 buildings at the same time. Of these, buildings No. 1 to 4 were located on one land plot, and Building No. 5 on the other. The notice contains 5 different project documents and the same number of state expert opinions.
The supervisors decided that the customer had limited the competition. There is no technical or functional relationship between Buildings 1-4 and Building 5. Combining the works into one lot increased their volume, the amount of collateral for the application, the execution of the contract, and the price of the contract to evaluate the experience.
Applying universal prequalification instead of additional requirements
The customer purchased a modular collapsible school building and its installation. In the notice, he established a universal prequalification.
The supervisors noted: according to the GRK of the Russian Federation, a modular building belongs to a non-capital structure. He doesn't have a strong connection to the earth. The structural characteristics make it possible, in particular, to dismantle and move such a building. Therefore, the purchase should have established additional requirements for item 9, including for the construction of non-capital buildings, rather than universal prequalification.
Unjustified rejection of an application
The bidder's application with additional requirements for the construction of the school was rejected: the amount of the acts of work performed was lower than the price of the contract confirming the experience.
The supervisors did not agree with the rejection: among other documents confirming the experience, the participant submitted an act of acceptance of the capital construction facility. The cost of the work in it coincided with the contract price. It was enough to confirm the experience.
The court upheld the decision of the supervisors.
Documents:
Review of Administrative Practice under Law No. 44-FZ (May 2025)
Review of judicial practice under Law No. 44-FZ (May 2025)