NEWS

A participant in the procurement for the maintenance of highways complained about the illegal enlargement of the lot. It included work on two roads in different municipal districts of the region, although they could carry out separate purchases.

The customer rejected the application due to an invalid registration certificate. It followed from the register of medical devices that a new certificate was issued for the medical device, but the participant presented the old one.

Customers made a joint purchase. It was planned to conclude two contracts for the maintenance of roads. Since the initial maximum price of the contract for each of them was below 5 million rubles, no additional requirements were set.

The government approved a list of machine tool products, the purchase of which the recipients of federal budget funds fix in contracts an advance payment in the amount of at least 80% of their amount, but not more than the limit of budget obligations.

Among other things, they want to establish the possibility of conducting an electronic request for quotations without restrictions on volume and price during the purchase, as a result of which they conclude a contract for granting the right to use a program for electronic computers and a database (subparagraph "b" of paragraph 4 of article 1 of the draft).

The parties agreed on a phased supply and installation of equipment. Since the supplier did not fulfill the obligations under the 2nd stage, the customer refused the contract and, by court decision, received the entire amount of the guarantee.

A number of products will be described taking into account the specifics. When conducting an electronic tender or auction, anti-dumping measures will be applied differently. The requirements for the content of an independent guarantee to secure applications will change.

In the procurement of repairs, one of the bids was rejected because the company attached an overdue decision to approve a major transaction. According to the Law on Limited Liability Companies, it is valid for a year from the date of adoption, unless otherwise specified in the document.

The parties concluded a deal for the supply of goods. Obligations were fulfilled at the request of the customer.

Some of the products were delivered and paid for. A month before the end of the contract, the supplier demanded to select the entire volume of products. The customer said that there is no need for it. The counterparty appealed to the court.

The customer purchased medical furniture. The draft contract obligated the supplier to submit, among other things, a copy of the registration certificate. The participant considered the demand illegal and complained to the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service.