NEWS

The winner issued an independent guarantee and paid a commission for it. The customer did not accept the security and recognized the winner as evaded, since it did not comply with Law No. 44-FZ and the terms of purchase.
According to the winner, if the customer has not accepted the guarantee, the bank has no obligations under it. So, he did not render a service and must return the commission as unjustified enrichment. The bank did not do this. The winner appealed to the court.
Three instances did not satisfy the claim:
the winner agreed on the draft guarantee with the bank without comments. The guarantee fully answered him. At the same time, the bank should not find out from the customer what wording to include in it in order to comply with the requirements of the purchase;

The customer purchased medical products. The FAS received a complaint that the object of purchase was described for a specific manufacturer, which limited competition.
The inspectors recognized the complaint as justified, since the customer did not prove that there are other manufacturers of the necessary goods.
The courts of three instances decided otherwise:
the state customer himself determines the characteristics of the object of purchase. He justified them with references to scientific articles and research protocols, conducted a market analysis and took into account the specifics of patient treatment;

In 2022, in particular, state universities and scientific organizations have the right to conduct an electronic request for quotations without restrictions on price and volume if they purchase goods, works, services with OKPD2 codes:
20 — chemicals and products;
26 — computer, electronic and optical equipment;
27 — electrical equipment;
61 — telecommunication services;

According to the customer, the provision of the guarantee on printing on documents for payment is illegal, because it is not in the additional requirements for such security. Because of this, the winner was recognized as a dodger.
The winner appealed the decision because:
the disputed provision did not oblige the customer to certify the documents, as it included the words "entitled" and "if available";
the guarantee allowed sending documents to the bank, including in electronic form;
the customer did not report its shortcomings and thus did not allow to re-provide the security.
The controllers supported him and noted the following:

Shortcomings were identified in the work on the repair of the highway, but they were not eliminated on time. The customer offered to terminate the contract. The contractor refused, because all the work was done, but the customer did not accept them and did not pay. The parties appealed to the court.
The examination found that the quality of the repair corresponds to the contract, but the technical task was made incorrectly. The disadvantages arose due to the fact that there are no necessary additional works in the latter.
The first instance supported the customer.
The appeal decided otherwise — collected payment from the customer. The examination did not show that the shortcomings cannot be eliminated, and claims to quality are not exempt from payment. In addition, the contract has expired, so it can no longer be terminated.

In the procurement, it is necessary to establish a condition that the RNP should not contain information about the participant and other persons from the application. The rule should be applied from July 1 in the following circumstances:
the participant and other persons were included in the register after the contract was abandoned due to sanctions and (or) restrictions against the customer;
the procurement did not present a similar requirement about the absence of data in the RNP.

According to Law No. 223-FZ, the head of the customer, a member of the procurement commission will take measures so that a conflict of interest does not arise during the purchase. The amendments passed the second reading on May 24.
They will not become members of the commission (p. 2-3 of the project):
an individual with a personal interest in the purchase;
participants (shareholders) of organizations that have submitted applications, members of their management bodies, creditors;
other natural persons from the procurement regulations.
The Law No. 44-FZ already has a list of possible participants in the conflict of interests. This list will be clarified (p. 4-5 of the draft). In particular, they specify which management bodies of the legal entity participating in the purchase will enter into a conflict of interest with the customer. For example, the founder of a unitary organization.

They want to clarify: they will not apply, in particular, antitrust requirements to competitive procedures to purchases from a supplier for additional reasons. The project was submitted to the State Duma.
The amendment will guarantee that customers will not be punished for violations of a number of norms of the Law on Protection of Competition.

The participant's application was rejected. The customer decided that there was false information in it, since the characteristics of the product did not match the information on the manufacturer's website.
The controllers considered this a violation. The courts of three instances agreed with them:
the parameters of the goods corresponded to the product passports, but the customer did not request them. The unreliability of the information in the application was not proved;

The customer has established in the draft contract that, by written agreement with him, the contractor may involve third parties at his own expense to perform the work. At the same time, he is obliged to provide copies of contracts with these persons at the request of the customer.
The participant complained about the restriction of competition. The controllers supported him, because the condition:
violates the contractor's right to freedom of legal relations with third parties. He can determine by himself with whose help he will achieve the best result of the work;