NEWS
A participant in the purchase of cleaning services for premises and territories complained that the customer did not establish additional requirements. Since January 1, these services are included in the list of cases when such requirements are needed.
The inspectors did not find any violations:
The winner did not sign the contract on time and did not provide its security. The customer recognized him as evading.
The controllers did not include the information in the RNP, because the winner:
did not fulfill his obligations on time, since the authorized person was on a business trip. In the supporting documents there are dates that fell during the signing of the contract;
signed a contract and provided collateral as soon as the opportunity arose;
The customer purchased products, including bananas, oranges. The winner of the purchase offered foreign products, and one of the participants — Russian.
The contract was concluded at a price 15% lower than the one offered. There is such a rule in the conditions of admission of foreign goods.
The winner complained to the Federal Antimonopoly Service that it is illegal to apply a reduction coefficient:
the object of purchase includes, among other things, fruits that do not grow in the EAEU countries. This means that the information about the country of the other participant's goods is incorrect. The customer should have made sure of this, for example, to request information from authorized organizations;
it is impossible to reduce the price, because everyone offered foreign goods.
The customer in the draft contract established the amount of penalties above their value according to Law No. 44-FZ. The controllers recognized this as a violation.
The first and appellate instances supported the customer. In support of their position, they referred, among other things, to the review of judicial practice, which they approved before the amendment of Part 7 of Article 34 of Law No. 44-FZ: until May 12, 2019, the lower limit of liability in the form of penalties was normal.
In the review, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, with reference to the norm of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the possibility of increasing the amount of the penalty, decided that penalties higher than under Law No. 44-FZ are permissible. The amendment of Part 7 of Article 34 of Law No. 44-FZ does not affect this possibility.
Among other things, new rules for maintaining the register of state contracts have been established. They took into account optimization corrections, detailed the list of information for the registry. In particular, when concluding a contract, it will include:
the account details of the supplier (contractor, contractor) for payment of obligations;
information about the place of delivery of goods, performance of works, provision of services.
They also made, for example, the following clarifications:
in the form of a procurement report from SMP and SONKO, they took into account the provisions on increasing the mandatory share of such purchases;
in the rules for maintaining the register of contracts under Law No. 223-FZ, it was determined that for long-term transactions, information on the amount of payment for the contract should be included in the register during each year of execution;
The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 27.01.2022 No. 60 "On measures for information support of the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs, on the organization of document flow in it, on amendments to..03.02.2022 on the Official Internet portal of legal information, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 60 dated 27.01.2022 "On measures for information support of the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs" was posted, on the organization of document flow in it, on amendments to certain acts of the Government of the Russian Federation and the recognition of acts and certain provisions of acts of the Government of the Russian Federation as invalid" (hereinafter - the resolution).
The resolution approved:
New regulation on the EIS in the field of procurement;
The cassation agreed with the lower courts that the fragmentary - incomplete coverage on the FAS website of the progress of the cases considered contradicts the principles of ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government. If the regulator told about the detected violations and the adoption of the act, and then the court recognized it.
The cassation agreed with the lower courts that the fragmentary - incomplete coverage on the FAS website of the progress of the cases considered contradicts the principles of ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government.
Representatives of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in their letter, in particular, note that according to Part 3 of Article 24 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ of April 5, 2013 "On the contract system in the procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs", the purchase of goods from a single supplier for the amount provided for in Part 12 of Article 93 of Law No. 44-FZ is also considered an electronic procedure for the purposes of Law No. 44-FZ. By virtue of Part 1 of Article 24.1 of Law No. 44-FZ, electronic procedures are provided on the electronic platform by the operator of the electronic platform. At the same time, the operators of the electronic platform are legal entities that comply with the uniform and additional requirements established by the provisions of Part 2 of Article 24.1 of Law No. 44-FZ, and are included in the list of operators of electronic platforms approved by the Government of the Russian Federation (paragraph 18 of Part 1 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ) (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated January 18, 2022 No. 24-06-08/2160).
Upon acceptance, the customer identified a discrepancy in the quality of the goods, among other things, and asked to eliminate the shortcomings.
After the supplier did this, the customer accepted the goods without comment and demanded to pay penalties for late delivery, as well as a fine for low-quality goods.
The supplier acknowledged the penalty, but did not agree with the fine: he eliminated all the shortcomings of the product, which was accepted without comment.
The courts of three instances supported the supplier:
they fulfilled their obligations under the contract, albeit with delay;