NEWS

The winner was found to have evaded because he did not sign the contract. He explained that he did not want to evade:
the contract was not concluded due to a laptop breakdown. This is confirmed by a receipt for repairs, a payment order, etc.;
for the purchase of goods under the contract, we received an invoice for payment, i.e. we were preparing for the fulfillment of obligations.
The data was entered into the RNP.

The inspectors complained that the draft contract established too large a penalty for violations of the supplier, and did not provide for the responsibility of the customer. The violation was ordered to be eliminated.

A participant in the purchase of medical equipment complained that the customer illegally allowed the winner's application with false information. The parameters of the product should be checked with the data of the technical documentation from the register of medical products.

The winner of the fruit purchase complained that the customer illegally applied the admission conditions and lowered the contract price. A participant with a Russian product indicated false information about the country in the application, since bananas do not grow in Russia.

The Government has defined standard terms of contracts for regular transportation of passengers and luggage by road, urban ground electric transport.

The winner signed the draft contract and provided a security guarantee. Since he was dumping, he also sent data on 3 contracts to confirm good faith. Later, the winner saw a mistake — one of them was still being performed. He informed the customer about this and asked to conduct the contract conclusion procedure anew.

The customer purchased works with project documentation. It indicated the goods of a specific manufacturer, but the ability to supply their equivalent in the purchase was not established.

The customer paid for the work partially, because the examination found violations. Disadvantages precluded full acceptance. He later withdrew from the contract due to unavoidable deficiencies and delays. The contractor appealed to the court.

In confirmation of the experience, 3 contracts were submitted that met the terms of the purchase. The customer rated the qualification at 0 points. The participant complained that the evaluation protocol did not reflect the calculation grounds and information about the contracts of each of the participants.

The customer made 4 requests for quotations with the same subject of purchase, but different periods of service provision. One company became the contractor for all contracts. At the request of other market participants, the FAS established collusion, this decision was challenged.