Encyclopedia of solutions. Description of the procurement object and formation of the subject of the contract. Description of the procurement item Qualitative functional characteristics of the procurement item sample

• Encyclopedia of judicial practice. Rules for describing the procurement object (Article 33 of the Law “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs”)
• 1. General requirements for the description of the object in the procurement documentation
• 1.1. The customer has the right, with the detail he requires, to include in the procurement documentation such characteristics and requirements for the product that meet his needs, and is not obliged to justify such needs
• 1.2. Customer requirements must be unambiguous and identical in all parts of the procurement documentation
• 1.3. When describing the procurement object, the possibility of limiting the number of procurement participants should be excluded
• 1.4. The description of the procurement object must be made in such a way as not only not to limit the number of procurement participants, but also to increase the chances of purchasing exactly the product that is needed
• 1.5. The description of the procurement object must be unambiguous
• 2. Formation of the subject of the contract
• 2.1. Inclusion of technologically and functionally related goods (works, services) into one lot is legal
• 2.2. The heterogeneity, heterogeneity and non-interconnection, according to OKVED codes, of the types of work included in the subject of the contract, does not in itself mean the absence of a functional connection between them
• 2.3. The possibility of supplying goods (performing work, providing services) by different persons does not indicate the unlawful combination of contract objects into one lot and restriction of competition
• 2.4. If only the products of a certain manufacturer meet the requirements specified by the customer, this is not a restriction of competition if it is possible to purchase such products from a counterparty
• 2.5. The inability of persons interested in concluding a contract to supply goods that meet the customer’s needs does not indicate a limitation by the customer on the number of bidders
• 2.6. Combining into one lot functionally related and united by the final goal of construction work and the supply of equipment is legal
• 2.7. Combining construction work and supply of equipment into one lot during turnkey construction may be considered unlawful if individual stages of turnkey construction are not provided for by the purchase
• 2.8. Combining the supply of computer equipment and the software necessary for its operation into one lot is legal
• 2.9. If the initial (maximum) price of the contract exceeds the maximum value established by the Government of the Russian Federation, combining into one lot a unique and only drug with a drug produced by several manufacturers is unlawful
• 3. Description of the procurement object
• 3.1. The presence of GOST does not exclude the right of the customer independently and taking into account his needs to determine specific characteristics for the goods offered for delivery within the parameters established by GOST
• 3.2. The establishment by the customer of additional indicator values ​​compared to GOST requires justification for the need to use such an indicator
• 3.3. The formulation of the requirements for the procurement object, given by reference to GOST, is illegal
• 3.4. The units of measurement specified by the customer in the procurement documentation must correspond to those specified in the relevant GOST
• 3.5. If the customer does not indicate units of measurement in the procurement documentation, the procurement participant must be guided by the units of measurement specified in the relevant GOST
• 3.6. The customer has the right to establish in the procurement documentation units of measurement different from those specified in GOST for voluntary use
• 3.7. When concluding a contract for the provision of services under compulsory motor liability insurance, the customer is obliged to independently indicate in the procurement documentation information about the Bonus-Malus coefficient
• 3.8. The lack of properly formulated requirements for the procurement object in the procurement documentation may cause an unreasonable reduction in the number of procurement participants
• 3.9. Indication by the customer of a trade name in the purchase description excludes the need to describe the parameters, functional, technical and qualitative characteristics of such a product, if the specified parameters and characteristics are unique to it
• 3.10. The absence of an indication of “or equivalent” in the purchase description may be considered justified in the case where the customer needs to ensure the interaction of the purchased goods with those already purchased
• 3.11. Indication by the customer of a trade name means that the participant must proceed from the compliance of the equivalent not only with the characteristics set out in the procurement documentation, but also with the characteristics of the product whose name is indicated in the notice
• 3.12. An obvious technical error in the procurement documentation regarding the indication of the subject of procurement does not indicate uncertainty about the procurement object
• 3.13. When purchasing medicines, it is allowed to establish a requirement for the remaining shelf life in percentage, if this does not lead to restriction of competition and is due to the needs of the customer
• 3.14. When purchasing equipment, an indication of the possibility of its delivery with components, the description of the parameters of which is accompanied by the words “no more”, “no less”, etc., may be considered unlawful if for these components the manufacturers of such equipment have established unchanged parameters
• 3.15. If, when purchasing construction work, design and estimate documentation was developed on the basis of a standard design, the presence of a corresponding indication in the procurement description is not necessary

Encyclopedia of Judicial Practice
Rules for describing the procurement object
(Article 33 of the Law “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs”)

1. General requirements for the description of the object in the procurement documentation

Note

Opinion of the FAS Russia:

When describing the procurement object, the customer must accurately describe the scope of work to be performed (clause 5 of the Review of Administrative Practices prepared by the Department for Control of Public Procurement of the FAS Russia, May 2016).

1.1. The customer has the right, with the detail he requires, to include in the procurement documentation such characteristics and requirements for the product that meet his needs, and is not obliged to justify such needs

Attention

FAS Russia indicates that when approving procurement documentation, the customer does not have the right to establish requirements for the technical characteristics of a product that are suitable only for one product (clause 1 of the Review of Administrative Practices prepared by the Department for Control of Public Order Placement of the FAS Russia, July 2015)

Depending on its needs, the customer in the auction documentation must establish requirements, in particular, for quality, technical characteristics (consumer properties), sizes, packaging of goods, taking into account the specifics of its activities and in order to ensure the effective use of budget funds, in compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation Federation provisions aimed at ensuring a competitive environment during bidding.

Accordingly, the customer has the right to include in the auction documentation such characteristics and requirements for the product that meet his needs and are necessary to perform the relevant functions. In this case, the customer has the right to detail the subject of procurement to the required extent.

In addition, the law does not provide restrictions on the inclusion in the auction documentation of requirements for the goods that are significant for the customer; There is also no provision for the customer’s obligation to justify his needs when establishing requirements for the supplied goods. Moreover, indication in the documentation of the specific characteristics of the supplied goods is provided for by procurement legislation. The customer's discretion is limited only by the requirement that competition is not restricted.

The courts correctly stated that from the systematic interpretation of the above rules it follows that today the legislation in the field of procurement allows the customer to independently formulate his order, based on the latter’s needs. In particular, when describing a product, the customer has the right to indicate quality parameters for the procurement object, which are decisive for him, but do not limit the number of potential procurement participants; he is not deprived of the opportunity to more accurately and clearly indicate the requirements for the purchased product.

Based on an analysis of these norms [parts 1-3 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ], the courts reasonably indicated that the customer has the right to include in the documentation for an electronic auction such characteristics of the goods that meet his needs. In this case, the customer has the right to detail the subject of the electronic auction to the required extent. Federal Law No. 44-FZ does not provide for restrictions on the inclusion in the documentation of an electronic auction of requirements for goods that are significant for the customer; There is also no provision for the customer’s obligation to justify his needs when establishing requirements for goods.

In the auction documentation, the institution established the requirements for the medicinal product taking into account its needs and based on the specifics of the type of activity being carried out. The task of procurement legislation is, first of all, to identify, as a result of bidding, the person whose execution of the contract will most closely meet the goals of effective use of sources of financing and the customer’s needs for goods necessary for the implementation of its activities. The law does not provide restrictions on the inclusion in the documentation of an electronic auction of requirements for goods that are significant for the customer and meet his needs. The provisions of the Law also do not oblige the customer, when determining the characteristics of the supplied goods in the documentation, to establish such characteristics that would correspond to all existing types, types, models of goods. The institution, having established the necessary requirements for the product, acted in accordance with Law No. 44-FZ.

The current legislation in the field of procurement allows the customer to independently formulate his order, based on the latter’s needs. In particular, when describing a product, the customer has the right to indicate quality parameters for the procurement object, which are decisive for him, but do not limit the number of potential procurement participants; he is not deprived of the opportunity to more accurately and clearly indicate the requirements for the purchased product, including, in this situation, its composition.

The customer, when forming these requirements for the characteristics of the product (evaporation filters), determined his needs taking into account the specifics of his activity and the need to purchase cavafilters of a special design, non-removable, made from the material he required and having a set of technical characteristics required by the customer.

The investigation department [the customer] does not dispute the presence of errors in the tender documentation, but points out that an accurate description of the technical characteristics of the product was given in the design and estimate documentation drawn up by the LLC, which was posted on the official website on the Internet as part of the tender documentation. The procurement participants, according to the applicant, were required only in the first parts of the applications to agree to perform the work and supply the goods. Consequently, as the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Novgorod Region believes, the mistakes made do not indicate a violation by the customer of the provisions of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ.

This argument was previously made by the Investigation Department during the trial in the courts of first and appellate instances, which was rightly rejected.

Information about the goods provided in the first part of the application must contain specific indicators that do not allow for ambiguous interpretation, which must correspond to the values ​​​​established by the auction documentation (clause “b” of part 3 of Article 66 of Law No. 44-FZ). Double indication of one procurement object with different indicators, incorrect indication of units of measurement of indicators and non-existent characteristics of the materials used leads to the impossibility of correctly filling out the first parts of applications by auction participants, and, as a consequence, to the rejection of applications for participation in the auction (Part 4 of Article 67 of Law No. 44 -FZ).

The auction commission came to the conclusion that the procurement participant, LLC, did not indicate all the names and indicators of building materials and products provided for in the Technical Part in the information about building materials and products that will be used in the work, namely, pipe 133Ch4 was not indicated. 0.

When checking the validity of the grounds for refusing the company’s admission to participate in the electronic auction, having analyzed the information contained in the auction documentation, which included Section No. 3 Technical Part, consisting of the Technical Specifications and sections of the design documentation, the courts did not establish the presence in the documentation of an indication of the product - a pipe 133Ch4.0. Therefore, we came to the reasonable conclusion that the commission had no grounds for recognizing the company’s application as not meeting the documentation requirements.

The administration’s reference to the fact that the scope of work presupposes the presence of pipe 133Х4.0, which the procurement participant should have indicated in the first part of the application for participation in the auction, in the absence of actual indication of such a product in the auction documentation, was rightfully rejected by the courts as not corresponding to the circumstances of the case and contrary to Part 2 of Article 33 of the Law on the Contract System.

The presence in the scheme "Plan TK-10 (new)" of information T1, T2-133Ch4.0 was not rightfully recognized by the courts as a circumstance allowing one to conclude that the customer accurately and clearly formulated in the auction documentation the requirement that participants in placing an order indicate this product as a separate product and its characteristics.

For the position “Heavy concrete, class B 7.5 (M 100),” the customer established the requirement: “In terms of compressive strength, the class of concrete must be no lower than B 7.5.”

This formulation assumes the possibility of a procurement participant offering a value of indicator B of 7.5 or higher.

At the same time, in the same position in the “name of product” column, the customer installed a product with a fixed indicator - “Heavy concrete, class B 7.5 (M100)”.

Thus, in the documentation, the customer has established conflicting information about the characteristics of the same and the same supplied goods, which entails a violation of the rights of potential auction participants and creates conditions for abuse by members of the auction commission when choosing the auction winner.

The courts justifiably did not accept the company’s arguments that the indication of the minimum and maximum values ​​of product indicators complies with the requirements of Law No. 44-FZ. The customer has the right to indicate in the auction documentation either the fixed characteristics of the goods required for delivery, or its minimum and maximum indicators. At the same time, the customer’s requirements must be clear and unambiguous, and these indicators must be the same in all parts of the auction documentation.

Paragraphs 15, 24, 159 and 163 of the Statement of Quantities of Work and Materials provide an expanded description of the purchased object in comparison with the parameters of GOST 31108-2003 and 6787-2001, which contradicts paragraph 5 of Section 3 of the Documentation, which provides for the use of only building materials (cement and ceramic tiles ), corresponding to GOST 31108-2003 and GOST 6787-2001.

Refusing to satisfy the applicant's request to declare the said decision illegal, the courts of the first and appellate instances proceeded from the fact that paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ stipulates that the description of the procurement object must be objective.

Having provided in the auction documentation the requirements for the cement used during the work, as well as for the ceramic tiles used for flooring with references to specific GOST standards that establish unambiguous and strict quality criteria for the required goods, the customer informed the procurement participants about the requirements for the goods necessary for execution of work. At the same time, the organizer of the competition, in any case, had to provide uniform and understandable requirements for the competition documentation for the participants, the most clear criteria for selecting the winner, ensuring the comparability of the proposals submitted by the participants.

1.3. When describing the procurement object, the possibility of limiting the number of procurement participants should be excluded

When conducting a procurement, the customer has the right to independently determine the procurement object based on his needs, but without specifying the requirements for the product (work, services), potentially limiting the number of procurement participants.

When placing a purchase, the customer has the right to independently determine the subject of the tender and the conditions for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services, taking into account compliance with prohibitions on requirements for goods, information, work and services, potentially limiting the number of participants in the placement of the purchase.

1.4. The description of the procurement object must be made in such a way as not only not to limit the number of procurement participants, but also to increase the chances of purchasing exactly the product that is needed

By virtue of the direct instructions of the law, the customer in the description of the procurement object indicates the functional, technical and quality characteristics, operational characteristics of the procurement object (if necessary), which meet its needs and are necessary to perform the relevant state or municipal functions. Within the meaning of Article 33 of Federal Law N 44-FZ, customers purchasing according to the rules of this law, when describing the procurement object, must thus determine the requirements for the purchased goods, works, services in order, on the one hand, to increase the chances of purchasing goods with exactly such characteristics that he needs, and on the other hand, do not limit the number of procurement participants. The basic rule for describing the procurement object is that the description of the procurement object must be objective.

The courts rightly considered that, by virtue of Article 33 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ, customers purchasing according to the rules of this law, when describing the procurement object, must thus determine the requirements for the purchased goods, works, services in order, on the one hand, to increase the chances of purchasing a product with exactly the characteristics it needs, and on the other hand, not limiting the number of procurement participants.

The basis for the refusal to admit the entrepreneur’s application to participate in an open auction was its inconsistency with the auction documentation, since the information contained in the application allowed for ambiguous interpretation regarding the material from which the work should be performed (isospan D and hydrostekloizol; galvanized corrugated sheeting and metal tiles are homogeneous materials) .

Recognizing the contested acts of the antimonopoly authority to comply with the current legislation, the courts, having analyzed the documentation for the auction, proceeded from the fact that the documentation provides for the possibility of replacing the material, and when carrying out the work, you can use not only corrugated sheets, but also metal tiles, isospan D, hydroglass insulation, as indicated by the entrepreneur in the application.

Under such circumstances, the courts came to the conclusion that the auction commission, when making a decision to reject an application submitted by an entrepreneur, violated the requirements of parts 1, 3 of Article 67 of the Law on the Contract System, and therefore recognized as legal the decision of the antimonopoly authority dated January 12, 2015 in case N 690/14 in the impugned part.

Ambiguity and uncertainty in the content of the instructions for filling out the application, allowing both the procurement participant and the members of the auction commission the possibility of a double understanding of the characteristics of the materials proposed for the work and, in general, information about the procurement object, leads to limited access to participation in the auction, which does not may be recognized as an objective description of the procurement object, and therefore, when describing the specified indicators of goods, the customer violated the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of part 1 of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ.

2. Formation of the subject of the contract

2.1. Inclusion of technologically and functionally related goods (works, services) into one lot is legal

Guided by the provisions of Article 15 of Article 8, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 50 of the Law

The Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that engineering survey work could be combined with design work by virtue of Part 5.2. Article 48 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, and with work on the development of a territory planning project due to their technological and functional relationship, which corresponds to Part 3 of Article 17 of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 N 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition” and paragraph 3 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the possibility of concluding a mixed agreement (an agreement that contains elements of various agreements provided for by law or other legal acts). The relations of the parties under a mixed contract are applied in the relevant parts to the rules on contracts, the elements of which are contained in the mixed contract, unless otherwise follows from the agreement of the parties or the essence of the mixed contract.

Since the Ministry placed the procurement in the form of work on the development of a territory planning project and work on the development of design documentation for a linear facility (construction of a highway), such an association complies with current legislation and does not violate the customer’s obligations established by paragraph 1 of part 6 of Article 48 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the mixed the nature of the contract concluded as a result of the procurement.

Taking into account the functional and technological relationship of these types of work, their combination is aimed at efficient spending of budget funds, since the division of these works into two procurements increases the period of design work (first, the procurement of work on the development of the planning project is carried out and after the execution of the contract, within the framework of this procurement it is necessary to plan and implement procurement of design work for road construction) and leads to a situation where, at the stage of developing design documentation for road construction, shortcomings are identified in the site planning project or the results of engineering surveys, which must be eliminated by the contractor who performed these works (who may object to the very fact of performing the work with deficiencies, as well as their nature, and also avoid eliminating them, which significantly delays the process of eliminating deficiencies and affects the quality of work).

Under such circumstances, the conclusion of the appellate court that the terms of the tender documentation do not violate the requirements of the law and are aimed at the efficient use of budget funds is correct.

According to clause 3.1 of the auction documentation, the name of the procurement object: provision of cleaning services for the territory of Veliky Novgorod. The description of the procurement object is given in the technical specifications (Appendix No. 1 to the draft contract), according to which the services for cleaning the territory of Veliky Novgorod include: summer cleaning of the territory, winter cleaning of the territory, maintenance of garbage bins and benches installed in the citywide territories of Veliky Novgorod , maintenance of a site for temporary storage of estimates and snow.

As follows from the case materials, the antimonopoly authority in the appealed act indicated that the actions of the Institution to include in the subject of the electronic auction the entire range of works on cleaning the territory of Veliky Novgorod and establishing the maximum amount of application security led to an unreasonable limitation on the number of procurement participants.

Having examined and assessed the evidence presented by the persons participating in the case in accordance with the rules of Article 65 and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the courts of two instances found that the cleaning services declared in the subject of the auction for the territory of Veliky Novgorod have a functional and technological relationship with each other, allowing for the efficient and rational use of budget funds , which is significant for the customer.

Under such circumstances, the contested non-normative act of the Department was rightfully recognized as illegal by the courts as not meeting the requirements of Federal Law dated 04/05/2013 N 44-FZ “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs.”

The courts correctly concluded that the equipment purchased by the department is technologically and functionally interconnected, is aimed at equipping a histological laboratory and is used in the process of a single cycle of histological examination.

The antimonopoly authority's argument about the non-compliance of the subject of purchase with the conditions established by the customer was the subject of consideration by the courts and was rightfully rejected, since the technical features of the set of equipment for equipping a histology laboratory suggest that the process of supplying the equipment includes the implementation of work on its installation, adjustment, commissioning and training of specialists, without which it is impossible to maintain the quality of the delivered product and its performance.

2.2. The heterogeneity, heterogeneity and non-interconnection, according to OKVED codes, of the types of work included in the subject of the contract, does not in itself mean the absence of a functional connection between them

According to the prosecutor who initiated the case of an administrative offense (and the district court judge who made the contested decision agreed with him), the work on developing multimedia content and the Center’s Internet site with the work on the production, delivery, installation, transfer and installation of stands and exhibits of the Center are technological works and functionally unrelated to each other, therefore illegally included in one lot.

The antimonopoly authority made a decision that recognized the complaint as justified in terms of the unlawful inclusion in the tender documentation of equipment for the catering department, laundry, with the exception of the equipment specified in paragraphs 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 of the local estimate; the actions of the customer and the authorized body were recognized as violating requirements of Part 2 of Article 8, Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 33 and Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the Federal Law of 04/05/2013 44-FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works and services to meet state and municipal needs", an order was issued , in accordance with which the applicant and the authorized body are ordered to cancel the competition with limited participation within a period of _.

Considering the contested decision and order of the antimonopoly authority to be illegal, the construction department filed this application with the arbitration court.

The lower courts, taking into account the circumstances established in the case and the legal relations of the parties, as well as the laws to be applied in this case, came to the conclusion that the stated requirements were satisfied. At the same time, the courts proceeded from the fact that the controversial equipment, namely: a refrigerated temperature cabinet, an electric boiler, a planetary mixer, a vegetable cutter, a juicer, a medium-temperature monoblock, a carpentry workbench, a potato peeler, a tabletop electric sharpener, a meat grinder, etc., can be purchased by any construction organization, regardless of its specialization at prices prevailing in the market, and it is the legal entity conducting construction work that can purchase equipment that is technologically more efficient and suitable for installation at the facility under construction.

In this case, the subject of the competitions is the construction of facilities (schools and preschool institutions), as well as the supply of equipment and furniture to equip the catering unit, laundry, installation of a shady canopy, benches, bins, carpet dryers, swings, sandboxes, slides, containers for garbage.

Since the construction of these facilities and the supply (installation) of equipment can be carried out by different persons, the antimonopoly authority considered that combining them into one lot entails limiting the number of participants in the competition.

Meanwhile, potentially any goods (work, services) combined into one lot can be supplied (performed, provided) by different persons. Due to the absence of a legislative prohibition on combining goods (work, services) into one lot, the possibility of supplying goods by different persons cannot in itself be evidence of restriction of competition.

The administration, in the auction documentation and the draft municipal contract, indicated the possibility of attracting subcontractors to perform work that the contractor cannot perform on its own.

Under such circumstances, the arbitration court of the first instance came to the correct conclusion that in this case, combining into one lot the execution of construction and installation works and the supply of equipment and furniture does not violate paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of Federal Law N 44-FZ and does not entail a limitation on the number of procurement participants.

The courts reasonably came to the conclusion that the requirements for the supplied goods contained in part 4 “Technical specifications” of the electronic auction documentation are necessary and significant to ensure the activities of the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Tatarstan. The documentation on electronic auctions fully complies with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of procurement, and the actions of the customer do not contradict the provisions of Article 33

The argument of the antimonopoly authority about the illegality of combining into one lot the goods that are the subject of these electronic auctions, due to the possibility of supplying software and computer equipment by different persons, was rightfully rejected by the courts, since due to the absence of a legislative prohibition on combining goods (work, services) into one lot, the possibility delivery of goods by different persons cannot in itself be evidence of the illegality of documentation on electronic auctions.

The subject of the considered electronic auctions was the right to conclude a state contract for the supply and installation of equipment, and not for the manufacture of the item of purchase, therefore any legal entity, individual, individual entrepreneur, including a person who is not the manufacturer of the goods required for delivery, can act as a participant in the procurement, ready to supply goods that meet the requirements of the electronic auction documentation and meet the customer’s needs.

The absence of any persons interested in concluding a contract with the opportunity to supply goods that meet the customer’s needs does not indicate a violation by the customer of the rights of these persons, nor does the customer limit the number of procurement participants.

The legislation regulating the legal relations under consideration does not prohibit the customer from including in the tender documentation a condition on the possibility of attracting subcontractors to perform the work, which was the case in this case. But it is impossible to unequivocally regard the exercise of the right given by law by the customer, as well as the subsequent actual involvement of subcontracting organizations by the sole participant in the competition (as indicated by the prosecutor), as confirmation of the absence of a technological and functional connection between the objects of procurement of goods, works, and services included in one lot.

2.4. If only the products of a certain manufacturer meet the requirements specified by the customer, this is not a restriction of competition if it is possible to purchase such products from a counterparty

As follows from the case materials, the plaintiff’s demand is due to the decision of the Department’s commission to reject the Company’s application due to the non-compliance of the product offered by the applicant with the customer’s requirements for the composition of dry milk formulas for therapeutic and prophylactic nutrition of children. LLC believes that only Malyutka porridge from the Dutch company Nutricia fits the parameters presented by the defendant.

There is no evidence in the case materials indicating a restriction of competition, since a product with the parameters proposed by the customer can be supplied by an indefinite number of suppliers, which is confirmed by the commercial proposals of other persons in the case.

Consequently, in this case the rights of the Company were not violated.

As follows from the case materials, the plaintiff’s demand is due to the decision of the Department’s commission to reject the Company’s application due to the non-compliance of the product offered by the applicant with the customer’s requirements for the composition of dry milk formulas for therapeutic and prophylactic nutrition of children. LLC believes that only the Nutrilon GA2 mixture from the Dutch company Nutricia fits the parameters presented by the defendant.

LLC is not the manufacturer of the goods requested by the defendant, but acts as a supplier-seller purchasing goods for the buyer, and is not limited in the choice of counterparties from whom he can purchase goods, including according to the characteristics proposed by the defendant.

The courts found, and this does not contradict the case materials, that the inclusion of certain baby food parameters in the auction documentation did not create an advantage for some order participants over others and did not lead to a limitation in the number of order participants.

Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the courts found that in this case, as part of the formation of the order, the Institution was guided by the existing need; the antimonopoly authority did not prove that the requirements formulated by the customer for the procurement object led to a limitation in the number of participants in the auction, and did not refute the Institution’s assertion that the gloves it needed were produced not only by RusMed-Upak LLC, but also by the company Nitritex (m) SDN . Bhd.", Malaysia.

When justifying the initial maximum contract price based on market analysis (using the method of comparable market prices), the Institution sent inquiries to organizations supplying medical gloves. Commercial offers were received from Neya LLC, Veles LLC, ATEKS GROUP LLC for the supply of gloves mentioned in the request, including paragraph 19 of Part III “Technical Part” of the auction documentation. Thus, sterile neoprene powder-free examination gloves can be supplied on the territory of the Russian Federation by various business entities, and not just by manufacturers or their official dealers, who did not participate in the controversial auction at all.

Thus, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion that the description of the procurement object used by the Institution corresponds to paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ.

According to the antimonopoly authority, the courts wrongfully did not take into account that the inclusion in the auction documentation of such an indicator as “storage without light restrictions” leads to a limitation on the number of participants in the auction, since only one drug with a trade name has this quality - Tienam according to the indicator storage at a temperature not exceeding 25 degrees C from 7 registered manufacturers of the drug with the international nonproprietary name Imipenem + Cilastatin. At the same time, there is no need to establish such an indicator, since the institution, having a license to carry out medical activities, is obliged to store medicines in accordance with the storage conditions established by the Rules for the storage of medicines, approved by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated August 23, 2010 N 706n "On approval of rules for storing medicines."

The argument of the applicant of the cassation appeal that the courts, pointing out that the customer had established the requirements for the quality of the goods that he needed, did not take into account another necessary aspect - not to limit the number of procurement participants with such requirements, does not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the conclusions of the courts, which rightfully indicated that the presence of a single manufacturer of a medicinal product does not lead to a limitation on the number of procurement participants, since the subject of the electronic auction was the supply of a medicinal product registered and approved for use in the Russian Federation, and not its manufacture. At the same time, the courts took into account the presence in the case materials of two applications numbered 4 and 5, ready to supply the required drug.

Determination in the auction documentation of the requirements for a medicinal product necessary for an institution, taking into account the specifics of its use in treatment, cannot be considered as a restriction of access to participation in the auction. As can be seen from the case materials, five participants submitted applications to participate in the auction. The courts also found that the drug, the supply of which was the subject of an auction, is freely circulated on the pharmaceutical market; the supply of the drug can be carried out by persons who have a valid license to carry out pharmaceutical activities or produce medicines. In this regard, any business entity, subject to obtaining the necessary license, has the opportunity to supply the medicinal product required by the customer.

The applicant did not provide evidence indicating that the circulation of the drug with the required values ​​on the relevant market is impossible or difficult, and the establishment of requirements necessary for the customer actually limits the number of potential procurement participants or creates an advantage for some procurement participants over others.

According to the LLC, the customer’s inclusion in the technical specifications of the requirements for the shape of the tablet and the method of dividing it was aimed at purchasing a medicinal product manufactured under the trade name Glemaz, the only manufacturer of which is Kimica Montpellier S.A. Argentina.

The arguments of the OFAS Russia for the Tula region that any of the auction participants had the opportunity to purchase medicines from the manufacturer - "Kimika Montpellier S.A." Argentina for the purpose of supplying them for the customer’s needs are also not documented, and therefore the contested decision in this part is not motivated.

From the case materials it follows that section 5 “Technical specifications” of the auction documentation establishes the requirements for the functional, technical and quality characteristics, operational characteristics of the subject of purchase (diesel reverse gear units DRRA26K) or its equivalent.

At the same time, the customer, in section 5 of the Technical Specifications, intended for the purchase of marine diesel reverse gear units DRRA-26K or their equivalent, therefore, the supply of goods equivalent to the stated characteristics and requirements of the customer was allowed.

From the letters from the Weichai company presented in the case materials, it follows that this company on the territory of the Russian Federation in 2014 supplied marine diesel reverse gear units of the 170 series (8170, 6170) to Russian organizations. No exclusive agreement has been concluded with any of the companies for the supply of these marine diesel reverse gear units, and therefore sales of these units are carried out without any restrictions. At the same time, the Weichai company noted that the 170 series units are supplied by many companies, some of the largest customers are: OJSC, LLC 1, LLC 2.

Evidence that the company did not have a real opportunity to create or purchase goods that met the requirements and characteristics established for the procurement object in the Terms of Reference was not presented in the case materials.

2.5. The inability of persons interested in concluding a contract to supply goods that meet the customer’s needs does not indicate a limitation by the customer on the number of bidders

Having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules established in Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the courts found that in this case, as part of the formation of the order, the Institution was guided by the existing need; in the documentation, the customer indicates several types of technical conditions, in accordance with which various manufacturers produce the declared materials and goods, and the proposal by procurement participants for materials and goods produced in accordance with any of the listed specifications would correspond to the Technical Specifications; the antimonopoly authority did not prove that the requirements formulated by the customer for the procurement object led to a limitation on the number of participants in the auction; The failure of any persons interested in concluding a contract to supply goods that meet the customer’s needs does not indicate a violation by the customer of the rights of these persons, nor does the customer limit the number of bidders.

The institution's auction documentation does not limit the ordering participants to offer for delivery an equivalent, that is, another product that has similar or improved technical and functional characteristics that meet the customer's needs.

The failure of any persons interested in concluding a contract to supply goods that meet the customer's needs does not indicate a violation by the customer of the rights of these persons, nor does the customer limit the number of bidders.

2.6. Combining into one lot functionally related and united by the final goal of construction work and the supply of equipment is legal

As established by the courts of the first and appellate instances, the contested decision of the antimonopoly authority in the actions of the department and department of the contract system in the field of procurement of the Omsk City Administration as the customer and authorized body for holding competitions for the development of working documentation for the construction of a school and the execution of work for the construction of a preschool institution in the city. In Omsk, violations of Part 2 of Article 8, Point 1 of Part 1 of Article 33, Point 1 of Part 1 of Article 50, Part 2 of Article 56, Part 5 of Article 24 of the Procurement Law were established, expressed in unreasonable procurement in the form of competitions with limited participation and consolidation into one subject to the procurement of construction work and supply of equipment, in connection with this, orders were issued to eliminate violations by canceling the results of the tenders.

Having disagreed with the said decision and order, the department filed this application with the court.

Reversing the decision of the court of first instance in part, the appellate court found that in this case, combining procurement into one lot does not violate the norms of Part 2 of Article 8, Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 33, Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the Procurement Law and does not entail restrictions number of procurement participants.

Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, evidence presented by the parties, the court of appeal came to a reasonable conclusion that the supply of the disputed equipment and furniture is technologically and functionally related to the construction of a school and preschool institution, since the final purpose of the purchase was the construction of facilities prepared for operation or provision of services .

clause 3.14 of the Methodology for determining the cost of construction products on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by the resolution

As correctly stated by the court of appeal, the combination of works on the construction of facilities and the supply of equipment in the case under consideration meets the needs of the customer, makes it possible to concentrate the management functions of all stages of the process of creating finished products in one organizational structure, carry out this process in a continuous manner, reducing time costs, and rationally spend budget resources.

The antimonopoly authority believes that combining into one lot the construction of a facility and the supply of equipment that is technologically and functionally unrelated to the execution of construction and installation works leads to an unreasonable limitation on the number of procurement participants.

Having examined and assessed in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the contents of the design documentation and technical specifications, the appellate court came to a reasonable conclusion that the subject of the purchase in the case under consideration was a complex of construction, installation and commissioning works for the construction of a kindergarten, the implementation of which required the supply of equipment .

The appellate court rightfully stated that the combination of works on the construction of facilities and the supply of equipment in the case under consideration meets the needs of the customer, will ensure their high-quality implementation, and effectively and efficiently use budget funds.

Having examined and assessed the evidence presented by the parties in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the arbitration courts came to a reasonable conclusion that the supply of the disputed equipment is functionally related to the construction of a preschool institution, since the final purpose of the purchase was the construction of a facility prepared for operation or provision of services.

The supply and installation of this equipment is provided for in the design documentation. The possibility of including in the estimated cost of construction the cost of purchasing equipment and the cost of work on its installation is established by clause 3.14 of the Methodology for determining the cost of construction products on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Construction and Housing and Communal Sector dated March 5, 2004 N 15/ 1.

In the case under consideration, the combination of works on the construction of facilities and the supply of equipment meets the needs of the customer, allows us to concentrate the management functions of all stages of the process of creating finished products in one organizational structure, carry out this process in a continuous manner, reducing time costs, and rationally spend budget funds.

2.7. Combining construction work and supply of equipment into one lot during turnkey construction may be considered unlawful if individual stages of turnkey construction are not provided for by the purchase

From the case materials, the courts established that the object of the controversial procurement was named as “Performance of work on the construction of the facility “Kindergarten for 200 places in the village...” At the same time, the following volume of work was stated: “turnkey construction” of a two-story children's building a garden for 200 seats with a technical floor, a basement, a technical underground, with a total area of ​​at least 5400 sq. m, with the implementation of all work provided for in the electronic auction documentation, including: interior and exterior decoration; installation of internal engineering and technical systems (heating, electricity, water supply, sewerage, ventilation, fire alarm and fire alarm, security alarm); construction of external networks of electric lighting, water supply, sewerage, heat supply; installation of technological equipment; landscaping, landscaping, installation of small play forms."

According to the terms of reference for the controversial purchase, the winner of the auction for the construction of the facility "Kindergarten for 200 places in a kindergarten..." must, in addition to the actual construction work, supply and install the following "technological equipment": a sewing machine, a piano, a vegetable cutter, bactericidal irradiator, juicer for vegetables and fruits, potato peeler, household refrigerator, dry-heat cabinet, TV, ironing rink, washing machine, drying machine, grinding and drilling and sharpening machines, electric frying pan, electric industrial stove, vegetable cutter, electric meat grinder, bread slicer , oven, personal computer.

In checking the arguments of the persons participating in the case, the appeal court proceeded from the requirements of paragraph 1.2 of the Regulations on the organization of construction of turnkey projects, approved by Decree of the USSR State Construction Committee dated November 10, 1989 N 147 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations on the organization of turnkey construction) and to this day current moment, from which it follows that the turnkey construction method provides for the construction of facilities prepared for operation or provision of services, based on the concentration of management functions at all stages of the investment process in one organizational structure and is carried out as a single continuous integrated process of creating a finished construction products (design - construction and installation work, including supplying construction sites with technological and engineering equipment - commissioning).

clause 1 of part 1 of article 33 of the Law on the contract system in the field of procurement.

In resolving the dispute, the courts proceeded from the fact that the presence of installed software on the supplied computer equipment is technologically related to the supply of computer equipment due to the fact that the use of computer equipment without the necessary software is impractical, the requirements for the supplied goods contained in part 4 “Technical specifications” of the documentation on the electronic auction are necessary and significant for ensuring the activities of the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Tatarstan, the documentation on electronic auctions fully complies with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of procurement, and the actions of the customer do not contradict the provisions of Article 33 of the Law on the contract system in the field of procurement.

Articles 15, Federal Law of July 26, 2006 N 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition”, Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the courts came to the conclusion that the inclusion of technological and functionally related goods (works, services) in one lot does not violate the norms of Article 8, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 50 of the Law on the contract system in the field of procurement and does not entail a limitation on the number of procurement participants, documentation on electronic auctions complies with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, the actions of the customer do not contradict the provisions of the Procurement Law , which was the basis for declaring the contested provisions of decisions and orders invalid.

By bringing the full name to administrative liability under Part 4.1 of Art. 7.30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the official proceeded from the fact that the state customer - the Ministry of Informatization and Communications of the Republic of Tatarstan, in violation of the requirements of clause 1, part 1, art. 33 of the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 N44-FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs", the notice of an electronic auction established a condition on the need to supply computers and a software product, which limited the number procurement participants and violated the requirements of the current legislation on the contract system.

In canceling the official's decision regarding his full name and terminating the proceedings, the district court judge [rightfully] proceeded from the fact that his actions did not constitute an administrative offense under Part 4.1 of Art. 7.30 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

A systematic interpretation of the above norms [parts 1, 2 of Article 33 of Federal Law N44-FZ] and consideration of them in conjunction, allows us to conclude that the current legislation in the field of procurement allows the customer to independently formulate his order, based on his needs, that is, when describing of goods, the customer has the right to indicate quality parameters for the procurement object, which are decisive for him, but without limiting the number of potential procurement participants.

It should also be noted that the antimonopoly authority did not take into account the fact that the presence of installed software on the supplied computer equipment is technically related to the supply of computer equipment due to the fact that its use without the necessary software is impractical.

The antimonopoly authority came to the conclusion that the customer, having established conditions in the description of the procurement object regarding the need to supply computers and a software product, limited the number of procurement participants and violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33 of the Law on the contract system in the field of procurement.

From the case materials it follows that the subject of the above auction is the supply of computers.

In the description of the object of purchase by the customer, the following terms of delivery of the goods are indicated: “Software for the possibility of collective work if the client part of this software is available on managed computers.”

In this case, as rightfully noted by the courts, the antimonopoly authority did not take into account the fact that the presence of installed software on the supplied computer equipment is technologically related to the supply of computer equipment due to the fact that the use of computer equipment without the necessary software is impractical.

2.9. If the initial (maximum) price of the contract exceeds the maximum value established by the Government of the Russian Federation, combining into one lot a unique and only drug with a drug produced by several manufacturers is unlawful

In accordance with the register of medicines, two drugs with the INN Ipratropium Bromide + Fenoterol in the form of an inhalation solution are registered on the territory of the Russian Federation: Berodual, manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co. KG, Germany, as well as Ipraterol-native, produced by Nativa Limited Liability Company, Russian Federation.

At the same time, the drug with the INN Ipratropium Bromide + Fenoterol in the form of an aerosol for inhalation has one trade name - Berodual and this drug is produced only by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co. KG, Germany.

Therefore, the courts found that the customer, in violation of part 6 of article 33 of the Law on the Contract System, paragraph 2 of the Government Decree, included in one lot the supply of a medicinal product with the INN Ipratropium Bromide + Fenoterol in various forms of release: an aerosol for inhalation, as well as a solution for inhalation. Provided that one trade name is registered in the inhalation aerosol release form - Berodual, and also that the initial (maximum) contract price exceeds the maximum value established by the Government of the Russian Federation - 1000 rubles.

In addition, the inclusion in one lot of medicines with the INN Ipratropium Bromide + Fenoterol in the form of an aerosol for inhalation, as well as a solution for inhalation, will not allow organizations that have the ability to supply only the drug Ipraterol-native, for example, produced by a limited company responsibility of "Nativa", the Russian Federation, including the manufacturer of the specified drug. Combining a unique and only drug into one lot with a drug produced by several manufacturers leads to abuse on the part of the customer.

As established by the courts, along with other medicines, the customer purchases the drug Temozolomide, a lyophilisate for the preparation of a solution for infusion of 100 ml.

As follows from the state register of medicines, this drug has no analogues in terms of release form and dosage and is produced only by one manufacturer, Schering Play Labo, Belgium.

Thus, as rightfully indicated by the courts, when developing documentation for the auction, the customer combined into one lot medicines with international nonproprietary names that have no analogues registered in the Russian Federation in terms of release form and dosage and are produced by a single manufacturer. In this case, the initial (maximum) price exceeds the limit value of the initial (maximum) price established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 17, 2013 N 929.

The courts concluded that the legal requirements for the content of the auction documentation were met, since this documentation indicated the obligation of the procurement participant to comply with the requirements of GOSTs. At the same time, the courts reasonably proceeded from the fact that the State Standards of the Russian Federation always contain a list of regulatory documents, a list of related GOSTs and SNiPs, the documentation of which is also used in a certain GOST and the customer did not require procurement participants to indicate the specific number of a particular GOST, if the indication it is not in the documentation, but asked that the product (material), in principle, comply with GOST, regulating a certain type of product (material).

The courts found that when drawing up requirements for the technical and functional characteristics (consumer) properties of goods (materials), the ministry was guided by the requirements specified in Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ, and used (in particular, when describing the contested positions) exclusively technical regulations and standards (GOST) and technical conditions regulating building materials. The auction documentation establishes the indicators of the main materials that will be used when performing work in accordance with GOST requirements. The standards establish mandatory and recommended provisions that define specific parameters and characteristics of the repair work performed. The customer also provided detailed instructions in the auction documentation for filling out an application to participate in the electronic auction. That is, based on the requirements of the auction documentation, procurement participants must indicate the indicators of materials in accordance with the requirements of GOST, namely: indicate within the limits specified in the auction documentation.

In addition, the courts concluded that the violations indicated by the department were not significant and were of a formal nature. The Department did not prove that these violations could mislead auction participants.

The courts rightfully concluded that the general requirements of this GOST do not exclude the right of the consumer of such products to purchase them within these parameters, and, within these limits, to independently determine the specific characteristics for the product offered for delivery, taking into account the specific needs of the consumer.

Taking into account the above, as well as taking into account the specific circumstances of the case [purchase of dry protein composite mixtures in pursuance of the Instructions for the organization of therapeutic nutrition in medical institutions, approved by order of the Ministry of Health of Russia dated 05.08.2003 N 330], the court of cassation considers the conclusions of the courts to be legitimate on the customer’s right to establish, taking into account his needs, indicators of the nutritional and energy values ​​of dry protein composite mixtures not in the wide ranges established in GOST R 53861-2010, but taking into account the specifics of the type of activity being carried out, based on approved calculations for interchangeable products taking into account their chemical composition.

The cassation court agrees with the conclusions of the courts that in this case, these indicators for the content of proteins, fats, carbohydrates and energy value in the protein composite dry mixture are standard, since they are within the limits established by GOST R 53861-2010, therefore, their justification in the auction documentation is not required.

The general requirements of GOST do not exclude the customer’s right to purchase protein mixtures with indicators within the parameters established by GOST and, within these limits, to independently determine specific characteristics for the product proposed for delivery, taking into account the needs of the hospital.

The customer established the requirements for the product within the limits established in GOST, taking into account his needs and based on the specifics of the type of activity being carried out. In this case, these indicators for the content of proteins, fats, carbohydrates and energy value in the mixture are standard, since they are within the limits established by GOST, therefore additional justification for the customer’s use of the indicators established by him in the auction documentation is not required.

The task of procurement legislation is, first of all, to identify, as a result of bidding, the person whose execution of the contract will most closely meet the goals of effective use of sources of financing and the customer’s needs for goods necessary for the implementation of his activities. The customer, having established the necessary requirements for the composition of the product, acted in accordance with Law No. 44-FZ. The definition of indicators in the auction documentation within the framework established by GOST cannot be considered as a restriction of access to participation in the auction.

3.2. The establishment by the customer of additional indicator values ​​compared to GOST requires justification for the need to use such an indicator

The courts, having examined and evaluated the auction documentation, found that the customer, when describing the requirements for the product (light hatch), used the following characteristics: maximum value of the indicator: body diameter (D) - up to 760 mm, opening diameter (D1): up to 600 mm, height (H) -- no more than 70 mm, the maximum width of the hatch cover (B) should not exceed 630 mm; minimum value of the indicator: body diameter (D) - no less than 640 mm, opening diameter (D1) - no less than 550 mm, height (H) - no less than 60 mm; constant value of the GOST 3634-99 indicator with a drawing. As the courts have established and the persons involved in the case do not dispute, the indicator “maximum width of the manhole cover” is not established in GOST 3634-99. The auction documentation does not provide justification for the need to use this indicator.

Under such circumstances, the courts came to the correct conclusion that the customer, when describing the procurement object, indicating the value of an indicator that is not in GOST, in violation of Part 1 of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ, did not justify the need to use such an indicator.

3.3. The formulation of the requirements for the procurement object, given by reference to GOST, is illegal

In subclause 3.2.2 of clause 3 "Preparation of an application for participation in an auction in electronic form" of section 1.2 of part I of the electronic auction documentation, the customer determined that if the technical part specifies the requirement for the product used to comply with GOST (another current regulatory act) with full details, the ordering participant must indicate all specific indicators of this product using not only the technical part of the auction documentation in electronic form, but also the corresponding GOST. Thus, as part of the first part of the application, the indication of a specific indicator, expressed in the relevant GOST by alternative values, is mandatory, and the absence of such an indication means that the participant does not express his full and unconditional agreement with the terms of the auction documentation.

Thus, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion that this paragraph of the electronic auction documentation does not correspond to paragraph 1 of part 1, part 2 of Article 33 of Federal Law N 44-FZ, since it allows the establishment of requirements for the procurement object without listing them in the electronic auction documentation. auction, but by attaching regulatory (technical) documents (GOSTs) to the documentation and entrusting the auction participant with the function of independently selecting the necessary characteristics and indicators of the procurement object that correspond to these regulatory documents.

In the case considered, the customer formulated the requirements for the procurement object by referring to regulatory (technical) documents (GOST), which contradicts paragraph 1 of part 1, part 2 of Article 33 of Federal Law N 44-FZ, according to which the requirements for the procurement object must be specified in the documentation about the auction.

As a study of the documentation on the auction in electronic form (electronic auction) for the supply of Quicksilver 25W-40 boat motor oil or equivalent, approved by the full name, shows, it actually does not contain a description of the requirements for the product and its quality indicators. The reference in the technical specifications of the documentation to "GOST 10541-78. Interstate standard. Universal motor oils and for automobile carburetor engines. Technical conditions" (approved and put into effect by Decree of the USSR State Standard of 04.08.1978 N 2103), cannot be considered appropriate description of the procurement object, since the specified GOST provides for various technical requirements for different types of motor oils, which were not specified in relation to the procurement object within the framework of the auction in question.

3.4. The units of measurement specified by the customer in the procurement documentation must correspond to those specified in the relevant GOST

The OFAS found that, according to paragraph 122 of the table “Information on the functional, technical and quality characteristics, operational characteristics of the procurement object” of subsection 11 of section III “Technical part” of the auction documentation, the customer requires a brick of grade 100 in terms of water absorption - not lower than F50. From paragraph 129 of the same section III “Technical Part” it follows that the customer requires 88-CA glue with a rubber bond strength of 56 to ST-3 steel 24 hours after gluing with a tear of at least 11.0 kgf/cm.

The courts made a reasonable conclusion that when specifying in the technical specifications for the positions “Guide profile PN-2” and “Metal profile rack PS-2”, the customer did not indicate the units of measurement for twisting of the profiles around the longitudinal axis, for the position “Sand for construction work” The customer does not provide units for measuring the chemical composition of sand.

, Part 1 of Article 50 of Law No. 44-FZ.

3.6. The customer has the right to establish in the procurement documentation units of measurement different from those specified in GOST for voluntary use

The appellate court established and the case materials confirm that Appendix No. 2 to the technical specifications on 9 pages describes in small print “requirements for the values ​​of indicators (characteristics) of a product, or the equivalence of a product offered for delivery, a product used to perform work, provide services, allowing determine compliance with the requirements established by the customer", which uses units of measurement for the value of product indicators (degrees Kelvin and mm/min) that differ from those given in GOST R 54169-2010 and GOST 13344-79.

From the case materials, it is clear that the violation of clause 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of Law No. 44-FZ imputed to the customer in the contested decision of the Administration was expressed, in the opinion of the antimonopoly authority, in a biased description of the procurement object and the use of non-standard values ​​of indicators and indicators when describing the technical and qualitative characteristics of the procurement object. designations (degrees Kelvin and mm/min).

At the same time, the Department did not take into account that GOST R 54169-2010 was approved by Rosstandart order No. 941-st dated December 21, 2010 for voluntary use, while based on Appendix No. 1 to the Regulations on units of quantities allowed for use in the Russian Federation , approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 31, 2009 N 879, which establishes the units of quantities allowed for use in the Russian Federation, their names and designations, as well as the rules for their use and writing, Kelvin is classified as the basic units of the international system of units.

3.7. When concluding a contract for the provision of services under compulsory motor liability insurance, the customer is obliged to independently indicate in the procurement documentation information about the Bonus-Malus coefficient

According to the institution, its actions do not violate Part 2 of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ, since insurers can obtain information about the Bonus-Malus coefficient (hereinafter referred to as BMC) independently by requesting the professional association of insurers - the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (AIS RSA).

As stated above, in the case under consideration, the price of the contract (insurance premium) is calculated in accordance with Resolution No. 739 according to the established formula, taking into account the decreasing/increasing coefficient (KBM). The absence of the KBM coefficient in the customer’s documentation (in the Terms of Reference) did not allow the procurement participant to determine the amount of the insurance premium for each vehicle.

Thus, the customer did not indicate all the necessary components for determining the insurance premium in the procurement documentation, which is a violation of Part 2 of Article 33, paragraph 2 of Article 42 of Law No. 44-FZ.

There was no information about the presence or absence of insurance payments in the event of insured events that occurred during the validity period of previous MTPL contracts in the customer’s documentation, therefore the quotation participant - OJSC - calculated the amount of the insurance premium using the KBM coefficient based on data from the automated information system, and the remaining participants - without applying a reduction factor.

The customer’s drawing up of technical specifications without information for the use of KBM and without indications of the possibility of its use when calculating the insurance premium and the contract price led to the clear receipt by the OJSC of a price advantage over other participants based on the results of consideration and evaluation of quotation bids, while for specific vehicles the amount insurance premium determined in accordance with the procedure

Having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules established in Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the courts came to the conclusion that the customer in paragraph 3 of the technical specifications of the auction documentation did not establish the functional and quality characteristics of the goods required for delivery.

The arguments of the Department of Health that the requirements for the product can be understood from the name and subject of purchase, the relationship between sections of the technical specifications, from the draft government contract, which, among other things, indicates that the supplied goods must meet the requirements of state standards, sanitary norms and regulations and other requirements for equipment and medical products, a requirement for the quality guarantee period of the supplied goods was presented, were considered by the courts and were reasonably recognized as untenable and not indicating the customer’s compliance with the requirements of Article 33 of Federal Law N 44-FZ.

The courts came to the correct conclusion that in this case, the absence of relevant product requirements in the documentation makes it difficult for participants in the procurement to formulate proposals for the execution of the government contract and entails a limitation on the number of participants in the procurement.

The antimonopoly authority found that in Appendix No. 2 to the technical specifications of the auction documentation, the customer, when describing the requirements for goods, uses non-standard units of measurement for the values ​​of goods indicators.

The use of units of measurement other than those specified in GOSTs should not lead to changes in the quality characteristics of the product. In the case under consideration, the court of appeal established and the Institution does not essentially dispute that when recalculating the units of measurement stated in the auction documentation (700°K = 417°C), the indicators do not coincide with the norms established by state standards (600°C).

In addition, based on the provisions of GOST 13344-79, the cutting ability of the sanding paper is measured in mm3/min, while in paragraph 29 of Appendix No. 2 to the technical specifications, non-standard units of measurement of this indicator are used - mm2/min.

In such circumstances, the cassation court agrees with the conclusion of the courts that the customer did not properly inform the procurement participants about the requirements for goods used in the performance of work at the contract execution stage, which led to a limitation on the number of procurement participants, and therefore the appealed decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in terms of establishing violations by the Institution of clause 1 of part 1 of article 64 (clause 1 and clause 2 of part 1 of article 33) of Law No. 44-FZ are legal and justified.

3.9. Indication by the customer of a trade name in the purchase description excludes the need to describe the parameters, functional, technical and qualitative characteristics of such a product, if the specified parameters and characteristics are unique to it

Indication by the customer in the purchase description of the trade name “Gensupen syringe pen” eliminates the need to describe the functional, technical and quality characteristics of such a syringe pen. This medical product has unique, unique parameters and characteristics, which in turn are known to market participants. Thus, a description of the functional, technical and quality characteristics of Gensupen syringe pens in the auction documentation is unnecessary.

Attention

FAS Russia believes that when describing the procurement object, the customer has the right to indicate specific trademarks only with a mandatory indication of the possibility of supplying goods with equivalent characteristics (clause 2 of the Review of Administrative Practices prepared by the Department for Control of Public Order Placement of FAS Russia, October 2015).

3.10. The absence of an indication of “or equivalent” in the purchase description may be considered justified in the case where the customer needs to ensure the interaction of the purchased goods with those already purchased

Having established that the AS Smeta software product had already been used at 75 workplaces of executive authorities in order to create a unified centralized accounting department, which provided for the use of the software product at 92 workplaces, the courts came to the conclusion that the customer’s failure to include the words “ or equivalent" was due to the objective need to ensure the interaction of purchased goods (services) with goods (services) already used by the customer.

Taking into account the above and guided by the provisions of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 N 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition”, the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the courts came to the conclusion that the customer’s choice of a specific automated system in order to ensure the interaction of purchased goods with goods , already used by the customer, does not violate the provisions of paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33, paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Contract System, which was the basis for declaring the contested provisions of decisions and orders invalid.

3.11. Indication by the customer of a trade name means that the participant must proceed from the compliance of the equivalent not only with the characteristics set out in the procurement documentation, but also with the characteristics of the product whose name is indicated in the notice

The courts, having established that the basic configuration of the product - the Gazelle stander, according to the Registration Certificate and its appendix, differs from the stander that was to be supplied as part of the auction, such structural elements as a headrest, belts, table, knee rests, side supports torsos, are additional components of the verticalizers (support-walkers) Gazelle (Gazelle), are not included in the standard delivery package, we came to the correct conclusion that, in fact, the requirements of the auction documentation established that the Gazelle support-walkers were to be supplied not in their basic version, but in a more complete set, or equivalents that meet all the requirements of the auction documentation.

This conclusion of the courts has not been refuted by the plaintiff.

The inclusion of an indication of the trade name - Gazelle walker supports - means that a person intending to participate in the auction must proceed from the compliance of the equivalent not only with the technical and other characteristics set out in the technical specifications, but also with the characteristics of the product, the name of which is indicated in the notice.

3.12. An obvious technical error in the procurement documentation regarding the indication of the subject of procurement does not indicate uncertainty about the procurement object

According to the auction documentation, the object of purchase was thermohygrometers in the amount of 10 pieces. Appendix No. 1 to the auction documentation indicates the purpose of the device - measuring temperature and humidity, as well as its characteristics and the completeness of the goods. The courts, having assessed the notice of the auction, the auction documentation, the protocol, the application of the auction participant, the management’s application for approval of the conclusion of a contract with a single supplier, came to the conclusion that there was a technical typo in paragraph 1.1 of the draft contract submitted to the antimonopoly authority, regarding the indication of the subject procurement - excise stamp detectors, since from the analysis of the auction documentation it follows that the customer held an auction for the supply of thermohygrometers, the requirements for functional, technical and quality characteristics established in the documentation relate directly to thermohygrometers. As follows from the company's application, it offered to supply thermohygrometers with the characteristics specified in the auction documentation. Under such circumstances, the courts came to the correct conclusion that there were no violations of Article 33 of Law No. 44-FZ.

A technical error made during the preparation of the draft contract in the presence of a notice of the auction, auction documentation, the company’s application and a protocol for summing up the results of the electronic auction does not indicate that the customer did not identify the goods that are required for delivery in the auction documentation. The presence of a technical error in the draft contract when applying for approval of a contract with a single supplier is not provided for by Law No. 44-FZ and Procedure No. 537 as a basis for refusing such approval.

3.13. When purchasing medicines, it is allowed to establish a requirement for the remaining shelf life in percentage, if this does not lead to restriction of competition and is due to the needs of the customer

The Court of Appeal rightfully rejected the argument that the shelf life of the product was incorrectly established, since the current legislation does not directly prohibit the establishment of the remaining shelf life as a percentage. Establishing a requirement for the remaining shelf life, expressed as a percentage, must be determined by the needs of the customer (consumers of the product) and cannot lead to an unreasonable limitation on the number of procurement participants.

3.14. When purchasing equipment, an indication of the possibility of its delivery with components, the description of the parameters of which is accompanied by the words “no more”, “no less”, etc., may be considered unlawful if for these components the manufacturers of such equipment have established unchanged parameters

As established by the antimonopoly authority and confirmed by the courts, in the terms of reference of the controversial electronic auction for the supply of server equipment, the following characteristics are indicated in the names of the components: “processor, type - at least 8 x86 architecture cores with a frequency frequency of at least 2.0 Hz*, cache 3 levels of at least 15 MB*, external interfaces, number of PCI Express 2* expansion slots.

Clause 31 of Section 2 of the Electronic Auction Information Card stipulates that if in the Technical Specifications the value of an indicator of a technical or functional parameter is accompanied by the words “no less”, “no more”, “no lower”, “up to”, but is marked with “*”, then this value is accurate and cannot be changed, and in the application the participant in the electronic auction indicates such indicators with the words “no less”, “no more”, “no less”, “up to”.

Since the disputed indicators with the sign “*” from equipment manufacturers have an exact meaning that is not disputed by the applicant of the complaint, the requirement to fill out the application using the words “no less”, “no more”, “no less”, “up to”, according to the correct judgment of the courts, contradicts the requirements of paragraph 1 of part 1, part 2 of Article 33 of the Law on the Contract System, since the meaning of the indicator with the named words literally implies the variability of the indicator itself, and not its immutability.

3.15. If, when purchasing construction work, design and estimate documentation was developed on the basis of a standard design, the presence of a corresponding indication in the procurement description is not necessary

As the courts correctly pointed out, the reference in some drawings of the auction documentation to the city of Kostroma or to another name of the object only indicates that the design organization used a standard project to carry out the relevant work, which does not contradict urban planning legislation.

The absence in the auction documentation of an indication that the design and estimate documentation was developed on the basis of standard modified design documentation does not indicate a violation by the customer of the rules for describing the procurement object established in paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 33 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ.

The Department did not provide evidence in the case materials that certain items of the design and estimate documentation mislead procurement participants when preparing an application for participation in the procurement.

The current version of the document you are interested in is available only in the commercial version of the GARANT system. You can purchase a document for 54 rubles or get full access to the GARANT system free of charge for 3 days.

If you are a user of the Internet version of the GARANT system, you can open this document right now or request it via the Hotline in the system.

A description of the object is needed to record the qualitative and quantitative characteristics (standard), which allow us to identify what the government customer requires. Both fixed indicators and an acceptable range are indicated.

In the procurement documentation, the description of the procurement object must contain indicators, requirements, symbols and terminology that are provided for by current technical regulations and standards, or justify in the documentation the need to use other indicators and terminology.

Cannot be described using:

• indication of specific trademarks, trade names, patents, utility models, service marks, industrial designs;
• designation of origin or name of manufacturer;
• requirements that limit the number of participants.

These rules for describing the procurement object under 44-FZ are prescribed in Article 33.

It is prohibited to establish requirements for the manufacturer, for the business reputation of the participant, for the availability of production facilities and other resources necessary for the production, performance of work or provision of services that are the subject of the contract. An exception is the cases provided for in 44-FZ.

Here is an example of the main characteristics of the procurement object under 44-FZ from the Unified Information System.

An example of a description of a bidding item

We compiled an example of a description of a procurement object under Federal Law 44 for ordering a computer desk.

Exceptions to the rules

In government procurement documentation there is an indication of trademarks if:

• there is no other way to more accurately describe the characteristics of the subject of public procurement;
• When performing purchased work or providing services, it is expected to use goods, the supply of which is not the subject of the contract.

A mandatory condition when describing the object of bidding is to accompany the reference to the trademark with the words “or equivalent”, except in cases where:

• goods on which other trademarks are placed are incompatible with those already used by the government customer, and interaction between existing and newly purchased goods is ensured;
• spare parts and consumables are purchased for machines and equipment already used by the customer, according to the technical documentation for these machines and equipment.

Example for an exception to the rule

For example, we order consumables for a printer - a cartridge. In the product description according to 44 Federal Laws we indicate:

1. Product — Canon PGI cartridge - 450XL (6434B001) for Canon PIXMA ix6840 printer black pigment.
2. Print resource - at least 500 pages.
3. Warranty period - at least 12 months.

An example of the qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object.

In this case, the description of the object of public procurement does not include a reference to trademarks with the words “or equivalent”, since other consumables cannot be supplied. Only original consumables (cartridges, toner containers) manufactured by the manufacturer of the equipment for which they are intended are supplied (printers are under warranty).

In order to purchase anything, you need to understand exactly what needs to be purchased. In public procurement, a description of the procurement object is used for this purpose. To format it correctly, let's understand the terms.

By the term “purchase”, Law No. 44-FZ understands a certain set of actions, the purpose of which is to meet state and (or) municipal needs. The procedure for such actions is strictly regulated, and personal liability is established for its violation. The procurement begins with the determination of the winner of the competitive procedure or the execution of a government contract with a single supplier and ends with the execution of such a government contract.

However, if you analyze the system of Law No. 44-FZ itself, then any actions in the field of state tenders begin with planning, namely with determining the needs of the state, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipality for certain works (goods, services). The procurement plan must already contain the name of the procurement object.

What is a procurement object under 44-FZ

What is a “procurement object”? Law No. 44-FZ does not provide a precise definition of this term. To interpret it, let us turn to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which in Art. 128 defines the objects of civil rights and refers to them:

• things, securities and other property;
• work results;
• provision of services;
• results of intellectual activity (intellectual property).

Thus, the objects of procurement are works (goods, services) that need to be purchased to meet the needs of the state, its subjects or municipalities.

How to describe the procurement object

In order for the procurement object to be clearly identified, its detailed description is drawn up taking into account the rules of Art. 33 of Law No. 44-FZ:

• the description must contain the functional, technical and qualitative characteristics of the object and be objective;
• in order to prevent restrictions on competition, the names of trademarks, brands, patents, etc. may be used only in cases where it is impossible to clearly describe the characteristics of the product in any other way;
• it is allowed to use the name of a trademark with the obligatory addition “or equivalent” in the case where the goods are to be used in the production of work and they are not the subject of a government contract;
• without the addition “or equivalent”, you can use trademark names to purchase spare parts and consumables for machinery and equipment, as well as in cases where the purchased product will interact with other products already used by government customers;
• It is allowed to use images of the required product, specifications, plans, sketches, drawings, and layouts. At the same time, the documentation must indicate the place and time where you can familiarize yourself with the layout or sample;
• When purchasing medications, the description does not indicate the name of the specific drug, but its international nonproprietary name. In the absence of such a name, the chemical or group names of the drug must be indicated.

How to describe product requirements

Additionally Art. 33 of Law No. 44-FZ prescribes:

• purchase new goods, i.e. not used, including not repaired or restored. Otherwise must be indicated in the documentation;
• indicate the requirements for the warranty period and maintenance of the product, the costs of its operation;
• it is mandatory to prescribe the installation and commissioning of complex products (machinery and equipment), training in working with them;
• if installation and commissioning of equipment require special permits, knowledge and skills, indicate the existence of such requirements (for example, permission to work from a self-regulatory organization in the field of construction);
• When describing technical characteristics, it is necessary to use the technical regulations in force in the Russian Federation. Otherwise, you will have to justify the need to use other indicators;
• indicators describing the characteristics of goods must contain minimum and maximum indicators, as well as indicators that cannot change their value.

Administrative responsibility

Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in clause 4.1. Art. 7.30 provides for liability for the unreasonable use of trademarks (patents, brand names, etc.) when describing the procurement object, which entailed restriction of competition in the form of a fine - 1% of the initial price of the government contract, but not less than 10,000 and not more than 50,000 rubles.

The most current news and expert explanations on pressing topics in the field of public procurement in the magazine “Goszakupki.ru”

Each purchase should have its own name, which should give a brief idea of ​​what exactly is being purchased and for what purposes. In the article we will talk about a number of requirements that apply to the names of procurement objects, and expert Oksana Shipunova will give recommendations on how to correctly name our need.

How to create the name of the procurement object

Previously, customers could, at their own discretion, designate the names of procurement items. No demands were made. On January 1, 2017, amendments to Law No. 44-FZ came into force. From this moment, the name of the purchased object must be selected in accordance with the catalog of goods and services ( Part 4 Art. 23 of Law No. 44-FZ). Responsibilities for compiling such a catalog and updating the information in it are assigned to the federal executive body.

The catalog of goods, works and services is a repository of templates that will help the customer create the name of the purchased object. Each template contains a catalog code, object name, list of characteristics, as well as other related information.

Oksana Shipunova comments, specialist in the field of procurement under 223-FZ and 44-FZ, presenter of the webinar “ » :

“The catalogue, no matter how good it is, today is a half-hearted tool. Unfortunately, it includes a very small part of the customer's potential needs. But you need to understand that the catalog has been fully operational since January 2017, so it will continue to be replenished.

If your need is already included in the catalog of goods, works, services, then you need to take the name from the catalog of goods, works, services. This is your responsibility. If the name is not there, then you can resort to the help of various classifiers, standards, and reference books. The catalog is based on OKPD 2, where we can find important information that will help name our procurement object. Any other classifiers, including international standards, reference books, can also help. If you have not found information anywhere, do not forget about the principle of reasonableness and clarity. The name of the procurement object should not be too general, for example, the name “equipment”. But at the same time, the name of the object cannot be too long or too detailed. There is no need to try to cram half of the technical specifications into the description of the procurement object.

If several products are purchased at once, it is advisable to indicate the group in the name rather than listing all the products, for example, “Supply of stationery and office paper.” For a single purchase, on the contrary, it is preferable to indicate a specific product, for example, “Supply of a passenger car.” This will allow potential suppliers to quickly find the tenders they need, which will ensure full competition and conclusion of a contract on terms favorable to the customer.

If we name our need in such a way that the supplier does not understand what we are buying, we significantly reduce the attractiveness of our purchase.

When we come up with a tricky name for a procurement object, we run the risk of getting confused in the names and using different names in different documents, or in one document. In addition, we need a reasonable name so that we can help customers formulate the NMC (we can use the register of contracts as a source of pricing information). And, often, a reasonable name predetermines the parameters that we will use when describing the need, for example, which classifier code we will classify, how we will name it, and how we will purchase: both in terms of methods, and in terms of requirements for participants in the procedure, and from the point of view of applying national treatment.”

The name of the purchased object must be indicated in all main documents:

1. Schedule. Not only the name itself is written down, but also a description of the purchased object (Part 3 of Article 21 of Law No. 44-FZ). However, it is prohibited to reduce information. It must be indicated in full.
2. Notice. The name is written in the header of the notice and in its text. This will allow you to quickly find the required procedure.
3. Procurement documentation. It is prescribed regardless of the type of procurement procedure, including the closed type.

Subsequently, the name of the purchased object must be indicated in the concluded contract.

What to pay attention to

Remember, it is prohibited to place notices in the Unified Information System in which the name of the purchased object does not coincide with the schedule ( Art. 21 Part 12 of Law No. 44-FZ). First, it is necessary to make adjustments to the schedule, indicating the corresponding OKPD2, and only 10 ten days after this it will be possible to carry out the purchase. If the customer has carried out a purchase, the name of which does not coincide with the information from the schedule, then a fine will follow: for an official it will be 15 thousand rubles, and for a legal entity - 50 thousand rubles.

Sometimes unscrupulous customers try to distort the name of the purchased items so that potential suppliers cannot find the purchase in the Unified Information System. Doing this is strictly prohibited, as this is a clear restriction of competition. The customer will also be held accountable for this. Therefore, it is necessary to be extremely careful when compiling names.

To display the form, you must enable JavaScript in your browser and refresh the page.

• On 05/07/2018
• 0 Comments
• 44-FZ, EIS, Purchase of medicines, medical equipment, Purchases from a single supplier, KRU, Purchasing objects, Articles, FAS

When looking for tenders, suppliers first pay attention to the name of the purchase. It will depend on him whether the potential performer wants to receive more detailed information about the procedure in order to resolve the issue of his participation. In the article we will give key information on the formation of the name of the procurement object according to 44-FZ.

Catalog of goods, works and services in the EIS

Until 2017, customers were free to name procurement objects at their discretion. This often led to misunderstandings on the part of suppliers, and sometimes played into their hands. In the end, everything came to the point that it was decided to standardize the name of the procurement object.

In this regard, from January 1, 2017, the UIS appeared (KTRU) with standard names and descriptions of procurement objects. The executive body, which is entrusted with control in the field of procurement, is responsible for its maintenance. Currently, such a body is the Ministry of Finance.

Registration in ERUZ EIS

From January 1 2020 year to participate in tenders under 44-FZ, 223-FZ and 615-PP registration is required in the ERUZ register (Unified Register of Procurement Participants) on the EIS (Unified Information System) portal in the field of procurement zakupki.gov.ru.

We provide a service for registration in the ERUZ in the EIS:

If the object is included in the Catalog

An amendment was made to Law 44-FZ, which obliges customers to use KTRU when preparing purchases. It would seem that the problem is solved - you just need to take the name from the Catalog. However, the work to fill it is very labor-intensive and moves slowly. In the future, it will include absolutely all goods, works and services that can be purchased under government orders. But this is still a long way off. First of all, they contribute to the KTRU medicines and medical products.

For procurement items that are already included in the Catalog, the name and description must be taken from it.

If the object is not in the Catalog

As we mentioned above, most procurement items are not yet included in the Catalog. To name them, it is advisable to refer to various classifiers and standards. In particular, to OKPD 2, which is the basis of KTR. You can also use other classifiers, including international ones.

If information about the procurement object is not found in the standards, the customer comes to the aid of principle of reasonableness and intelligibility. You should not make the title too general and short, but at the same time, you should not describe the details and key points of the technical specifications in it. From the description, the supplier should immediately understand what product or group the customer is interested in, but without unnecessary details that could confuse him.

If the customer has a need for some the only subject, then it should be indicated in the title. For example, if you need to purchase a vehicle, it would be advisable to title such a purchase “ Pleaving a car».

Often the customer purchases a whole product group. In this case, it is better to mention its name in the title. For example, the purchase of items to ensure the operation of the office can be entitled “ Pleaving office supplies" From this name it is immediately clear which group we are talking about. But the supplier will be able to find out exactly what office supplies and in what quantity the customer needs from the description.

Why is it important to formulate the correct name?

Due to an incorrect name, difficulties can arise for both the customer and the supplier. Here main reasons why it is important to name the procurement object correctly and clearly:

1. Convenient to search. The supplier simply will not be able to find the purchase if the name is inaccurate. This means that competition and the chance of getting a better price are reduced.
2. Easy to understand customer needs. If the name of the object is too complicated, it may turn off the supplier, even if he discovers the purchase. He will get the impression that he will not be able to understand the technical specifications.
3. It's easier to offer a price. A clear and concise name of the procurement object will help when forming a price proposal. For example, you can find purchases with the same object in the register of purchase contracts and evaluate the price level.
4. Easier to determine purchasing parameters. A correctly formed name of the object will help determine the method of conduct, the requirements for participants, and the need to apply.
5. Fewer questions from the FAS. A confusing name may result in a complaint against the customer. The fact is that in their attempts to limit competition, unscrupulous customers sometimes deliberately create confusion in the documentation and the name of the object. The supplier may consider that the customer set exactly this goal and complain to the FAS.

About the importance of sticking to the formed name

All procurement documents must indicate the same name of the object, namely:

1. IN schedule In addition to the name, you should indicate a description of the object. Information must be provided in full.
2. IN notice It is necessary to indicate the name of the procurement object in the header and in the text. Moreover, it must coincide with what is indicated in the schedule.
3. IN documentation The procurement information must also contain the name of the object and its detailed description.
4. IN contract When it is concluded, you must indicate the name of the purchased object.

Important! You cannot indicate one name in the schedule and then “change it a little” for notification. First you have to make a change to the schedule. If this is not done, an official may be fined 15,000 rubles, and a legal entity - 50,000 rubles. The procedure can only be carried out after 10 days after changes have been made to the schedule.