NEWS

As experts of the antimonopoly department note in their letter, in accordance with Part 12 of Article 93 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ of April 5, 2013 "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs" in cases provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part 1 of Article 93 of the Law No. 44-FZ, the purchase from a single counterparty can be carried out in electronic form using an electronic platform for an amount not exceeding 3 million rubles. Such purchases relate to electronic procedures by virtue of Part 3 of Article 24 of Law No. 44-FZ.

The customer accepted the result of the construction contract, it was terminated by agreement. The contractor demanded to pay for additional work, which was provided for in the project documentation, but not in the estimate.

The customer purchased the medicine from the VED. The "third extra" mechanism has worked. Special admission conditions were applied to the winner's application, since his goods are produced in the EAEU at all stages.

Inspectors complained that the product was described for a specific manufacturer. The customer allowed the equivalent to be supplied only with identical parameters, but the analogue cannot match the properties of the subject of purchase. Instead of the ranges of the required values, they indicated that the equivalent is a product that is not inferior in characteristics to the parameters from the documentation.

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.