COURT CONFIRMED LEGALITY OF FAS DECISION IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CASE FOR 2.5 BILLION RUB

12-07-2022 | 14:35

It is necessary to set the evaluation criteria so that the competition does not turn into an auction

FAS Russia received a complaint from OOO Road Construction Company against the actions of AO KAVKAZ.RF. The company held an open tender in electronic form for the right to conclude a state contract for the supply of sets of technological equipment of funicular railway for the Mamison resort under construction in North Ossetia. The initial price of the contract was more than 2.5 billion rubles.

The applicant indicated that the customer had unlawfully established the procedure for evaluating applications according to the detailing indicator "The total price of contracts executed by the procurement participant". Thus, the maximum value of the contract value accepted for evaluation was 1,261,851,360 rubles – that is, 50% of the initial contract price. Thus, all contracts for the specified amount or more were evaluated equally – at 100 points.

Commission of FAS Russia recognized the complaint as justified – the customer established an improper procedure for evaluating applications for participation in the tender, which was similar to the auction.

AO KAVKAZ.RF did not agree with the decision of the antimonopoly authority and appealed to the court. However, the Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow confirmed the legality of the decision of FAS Russia. The establishment of the maximum limit value of the characteristics of the object of purchase in the amount of 50% of the Initial (maximum) contract price in the order of evaluation during the tender is a violation of the Law on the Contract System*.

 

* Paragraph 11 of the Part 1 of the Article 42 of the Federal Law of  April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for State and Municipal needs"



Site Map

News & Events Press Releases Image Library About FAS Russia What We Do Institutional Memory Mission, Goals, Values Priority Setting Stakeholders Engagement Center for Education and Methodics Our History Our Structure Powers of Head and Deputy Heads Our Ratings Using our website International Cooperation Treaties & Agreements OECD Competition Committee OECD meetings 2013 OECD meetings 2014 OECD meetings 2015 OECD meetings 2016 OECD meetings 2017 OECD meetings 2018 OECD meetings 2019 OECD meetings 2020 OECD meetings 2021 FAS Annual Reports OECD-GVH RCC RCC Newsletter Projects ICAP Council on Advertising Headquarters for Joint Investigations UNCTAD 15th session IGE UNCTAD 16th session IGE UNCTAD 17th session IGE UNCTAD 18th session IGE UNCTAD 8th UN Conference on Competition 19th session IGE UNCTAD 20th session IGE UNCTAD 21th session IGE UNCTAD EEU Model Law on Competition ICN BRICS BRICS Conferences Documents BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre BRICS Working Groups for the Research of Competition Issues in Socially Important markets Working Group for the Research of Competition Issues in the Pharmaceutical Markets Working Group for the Research of Competition Issues in the Food Value Chains Working Group for the Research of Competition Issues in the Automobile Markets Working Group for the Research of Competition Issues in the Digital Markets BRICS Coordination Committee on antimonopoly policy EU APEC Competition Policy and Law Group Annual meetings Projects ERRA Full Members Organizational Structure Document Library Legislation Reports & Analytics Cases & decisions COVID-19 Contacts Give feedback Contact us Links Authorities Worldwide