NEWS

The customer, on the basis of clause 9, Part 1, Article 93 of Law No. 44-FZ, concluded a contract with the supplier for the construction of a sports and recreation complex. He justified this decision by the presence of a force majeure circumstance — the spread of the coronavirus. The FAS decided that the customer violated the law.

Representatives of Glavgosexpertiza reported on the creation of a special portal on the website of the Federal State Information System for Pricing in Construction, which contains information on the procedure for changing the contract price in accordance with the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1315 of August 9, 2021 and the order of the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation of July 21, 2021.   No. 500 / ave.

The FAS of Russia, in accordance with clause 1.1 of Part 1 of Article 15.2, Article 15.9-1 of Federal Law No. 275-FZ of December 29, 2012 "On the State Defense Order", approved the Procedure for issuing a request to terminate actions (inaction) that contain signs of violation of legislation in the field of the state defense order (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure), as well as the form of this requirement (Order of the FAS of Russia No. 510/21 of May 26, 2021 (zareg. in the Ministry of Justice on August 20, 2021).

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.