NEWS

Purchases are carried out by the Ministry of Industry and Trade through open electronic competitions. The document concerns various goods: from balls and skipping ropes to kayaks and snowboards. 

The procurement documentation established a criterion for evaluating experience in similar work with the customer: 0 points were awarded for the absence and (or) the presence of negative experience. The negative experience was confirmed by letters of complaint.
The procurement participant complained about the procedure for evaluating applications. It violates the principle of equality and justice.
The supervisors supported the customer: the evaluation procedure corresponds to the procurement regulations. The participant did not appeal against its conditions.
The courts did not agree with the antimonopoly authority:
this method of evaluation cannot be applied equally to all participants. Information about the claim work is not published in publicly available resources, there is no single register. The customer evaluates applications arbitrarily, since participants may not report claims.

The winner did not sign the contract on time and did not submit the security. The customer recognized him as evading.
The winner explained that he did not want to evade. He applied to the bank to get a guarantee to secure the contract, and incurred the costs of issuing it. However, he refused without explanation. Other banks also did not issue guarantees. As proof, the winner presented a copy of the initial refusal and copies of appeals to other banks.

Товарлар китерүгә аукционда катнашучының гаризасын кире кактылар, чөнки анда тәкъдим ителә торган продукциянең товар билгесен күрсәтмәделәр. Контролерлар моны законсыз дип санаган.
Судлар монополиягә каршы органны хупладылар:
таләп күрсәтергә беренче өлешендә гариза конкрет күрсәткечләр һәм ил происхождения-императив. Товар билгесе турында шарт-вариатив.

24 августта методикада сметага төзәтмәләр кертү өчен яңа очрак барлыкка киләчәк-эшләрнең гомуми бәясе, төзелеш ресурслары кыйммәтләнүгә бәйле рәвештә, 30% тан да артмаган.
Үзгәрешләрне нигезләү өчен исәп-хисап төзергә кирәк. Ул контракт бәясеннән тора. Әйтик, әгәр ул 30 млн сумнан артык булмаса, исәп-хисапны тәкъдим ителгән форма буенча ясарга мөмкин.

Federal Law No. 44-FZ of 05.04.2013 "On the Contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and Municipal needs" (hereinafter – Law No. 44-FZ) stipulates that when making purchases, small business entities are provided with advantages in accordance with Article 30 of Law No. 44-FZ.
In particular, when conducting competitive purchases from small business entities, customers are required to establish a restriction in the procurement notices regarding procurement participants, which can only be small business entities.

The application of the procurement participant with a ban on the admission of foreign goods was recognized as not meeting the requirements of the documentation. He did not provide an extract from the register of Russian or Eurasian industrial products.
The participant did not agree with this, since he attached the extract.
The customer explained that when considering the second parts of the applications, he did not find an extract in the register.

The government decided to support the construction industry due to the rise in the cost of price-forming resources. Thus, federal customers from a special list will be able to adjust contracts on the basis of clause 8 of Part 1 of Article 95 of Law No. 44-FZ. It includes, for example, departments, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, state-owned companies.
You can make changes if several conditions are met: a
contract with a price of 1 million rubles and above, which is concluded before July 1, 2021 for a period of at least a year;
the obligations under the contract as of the date of conclusion of the agreement on changing its terms are not fulfilled;
there is a documented proposal of the contractor for an adjustment;
there is a government decision;

The antimonopoly authority received a complaint. Among other things, it indicated that the customer illegally set a condition for evaluating the participants of the purchase at the contract price: the highest score will be given to the one who offers a price more than 4% lower than the initial one.

The supervisors considered that such an assessment procedure violates the principle of targeted and effective budget spending.

The customer did not agree:

the complainer did not participate in the purchase, so he could not appeal against the customer's violations. Considering his complaint, the FAS exceeded its powers;

the controversial evaluation procedure is established to ensure fair competition. In addition, the maximum reduction in the contract price is not a priority, since other conditions are also evaluated.

Three instances supported the controllers:

before the deadline for submitting applications, any person has the right to appeal against violations of the customer, regardless of whether he submitted an application for participation in the purchase or not;

Following the results of the purchase, the parties signed a contract. After that, the contractor informed the customer by letter that he had suspended work:
we have identified volumes that are not taken into account in the technical documentation, so we need to increase the cost;
the actual volume of work does not partially coincide with the volumes from the estimate.
Since the customer did not respond to the letter, the contractor sent him a decision on unilateral termination of the contract. They received it on the same day.
A month later, the customer replied that he would not increase the cost, since the contractor in the application for participation in the purchase agreed to perform the work on the terms of the auction documentation.
In response to the contractor's decision to unilaterally refuse, the customer reported that the work under the contract was not completed, and asked to complete them. Later, he demanded to pay a fine for non-fulfillment of the contract and decided to cancel it unilaterally.