NEWS

The winner of the purchase offered the customer to count the fines not from the price of the stage, but based on the monthly cost of services rendered. The customer refused to change the calculation procedure.

Product requirements have limited competition

The customer provided specific standards and supported audio compression algorithms for the purchased equipment in the technical task. The participant appealed to the control body, since the set indicators corresponded to the equipment of only one manufacturer.

Based on the results of the review of applications for participation in the electronic auction, the Chairman of the auction Commission proposed to allow an application to participate in the purchase that did not contain a specific indicator. At the same time, other members of the Commission did not agree with the opinion of the Chairman and voted by a majority to refuse to allow the application to participate in the purchase.
 

In particular, in his letter, the agencies noted that if the object of procurement is the supply of medicines, the customer must provide to participants about the presence of wholesalers of non-medical drugs, a license for pharmaceutical activity with the indication "wholesale trade of medicinal products". At the same time, a retail seller who does not have a license for pharmaceutical activities with the indication "wholesale trade in medicines" cannot be a participant in the purchase, the object of which is the supply of medicines.

The customer conducted an electronic auction for the purchase of rehabilitation equipment and signed a contract with the winner. During the performance of obligations, the supplier found that part of the product did not meet the requirements of the contract. The counterparty replaced the defective product with a new one before the delivery period under the contract expired. The customer signed the acceptance certificate. The supplier has fulfilled its obligations.

The winner of the electronic auction for the supply of printer cartridges complained that the draft contract sent to him for signing contained information about the product that did not match the application.
 

The winner of the electronic auction did not have time to get a Bank guarantee. Within the time limit set for signing the contract, he posted a Protocol of disagreements on the electronic platform. In it, he notified the customer that he had sent the document in order to get additional time to agree on the guarantee.

The auction winner provided security for the execution of the contract. The Bank guarantee did not meet the requirements of article 45 of Law No. 44-FZ: the winner included in it a condition under which the obligations and liability were limited to the amount of the Bank guarantee. The participant was found to have evaded the conclusion of the contract. The decision of the control body was supported by the court.

In particular, specialists of the Ministry told about the nuances of determining the initial maximum price of the contract when making purchases:
 

The customer is not required to specify all possible penalty thresholds in the draft contract