1. The auction commission checks the first parts of applications for participation in electronic auction containing the information provided for by Part 3 of this federal law, for compliance with the requirements established by the documentation of such an auction in relation to the purchased goods, works, services.

2. The term for consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction may not exceed seven days from the date of the deadline for filing these applications, and if the initial (maximum) price of the contract does not exceed three million rubles, such a period may not exceed one business day from the closing date for the submission of said applications.

3. Based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction containing the information provided for by Part 3 of this Federal Law, the auction commission decides on the admission of the procurement participant who submitted an application for participation in such an auction to participate in it and recognize this procurement participant a participant in such an auction or on refusal of admission to participation in such an auction in the manner and on the grounds provided for by paragraph 4 of this article.

4. A participant in an electronic auction is not allowed to participate in it if:

1) failure to provide the information provided for by Part 3 of this Federal Law, or the provision of false information;

2) non-compliance of the information provided for by Part 3 of this Federal Law with the requirements of the documentation for such an auction.

5. Denial of admission to participation in an electronic auction on grounds not provided for by part 4 of this article is not allowed.

6. Based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction, the auction commission draws up a protocol for consideration of applications for participation in such an auction, signed by all its members present at the meeting of the auction commission no later than the deadline for consideration of these applications. The specified protocol must contain information:

1) on the identification numbers of applications for participation in such an auction;

2) on the admission of the procurement participant who submitted an application for participation in such an auction, which was assigned an appropriate identification number, to participate in such an auction and the recognition of this procurement participant as a participant in such an auction or on refusal to admit to participation in such an auction with the rationale for this decision, in including an indication of the provisions of the documentation for such an auction that the application for participation in it does not comply with, the provisions of the application for participation in such an auction that do not comply with the requirements established by the documentation for it;

3) on the decision of each member of the auction commission in relation to each participant in such an auction on admission to participation in it and on its recognition as a participant or on refusal to admit to participation in such an auction;

4) on the presence among the proposals of procurement participants recognized as participants in an electronic auction, proposals for the supply of goods originating from a foreign state or a group of foreign states, works, services, respectively, performed, provided by foreign persons, if the conditions, prohibitions, restrictions on the admission of goods , works, services are established by the customer in the electronic auction documentation in accordance with this Federal Law.

7. The protocol specified in part 6 of this article shall be sent by the customer to the operator no later than the deadline for consideration of applications for participation in an electronic auction. electronic platform and placed in a single information system.

8. If, based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction, the auction commission decided to refuse admission to participation in such an auction of all procurement participants who submitted applications for participation in it, or to recognize only one procurement participant who submitted an application for participation in such an auction, by its participant, such an auction shall be declared invalid. Information on the recognition of such an auction as invalid shall be entered into the minutes specified in Part 6 of this Article.

9. Within one hour from the moment the operator of the electronic site receives the protocol specified in Part 6 of this Article, the operator of the electronic site is obliged to send a notice on the decision taken in relation to the applications submitted by them, information on the presence among the proposals of procurement participants recognized as participants in the electronic auction, proposals for the supply of goods of Russian origin in the event that the documentation for the electronic auction establishes conditions, prohibitions, restrictions on the admission of goods originating from a foreign state or groups of foreign states, works, services, respectively, performed, rendered by foreign persons, in accordance with this Federal Law. If the auction commission has made a decision to refuse admission to participation in such an auction of its participant, the notification of this decision must contain the rationale for its adoption, including an indication of the provisions of the documentation for such an auction that this application does not comply with, the proposals contained in this application that do not comply with the requirements of the documentation for such an auction, as well as the provisions of federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the violation of which served as the basis for making this decision to refuse.

• Ensuring applications for participation in competitions and auctions

  22. The operator of the electronic site within one working day following the date of receipt of the protocol specified in Part 6 of Article 54.5, Part 6 of Article 67 of this Federal Law, sends information to the bank about the denial of admission to the procurement participant to participate in the relevant electronic procedure. The Bank, within one business day from the receipt of the said information, terminates the blocking carried out in accordance with paragraph 20 of this Article. Money on a special account of such a procurement participant in the amount of the security of the application for participation in the specified procedure.

Article 67 of Law 44-FZ is devoted to consideration of the first parts of applications for an electronic auction. If the application is drawn up with violations or not submitted on time, you may not be allowed to bid. We will tell you how to properly prepare and submit an application for an auction.

Necessity of Article 67 of Federal Law 44-FZ

The application for the auction consists of two parts. Requirements for the content of the application are specified in 44 fz. The first part contains:

• if the subject of the contract is the supply of goods - consent to the supply and performance of products that comply with the provisions of the procurement documentation;
• if the contract is concluded for works or services - consent to their performance on the terms established by the customer;
• the first part of the application may contain an image of the supplied goods in the form of a photograph, drawing, sketch, etc.

To get full access to the PRO-GOSZAKAZ.RU portal, please, register. It won't take more than a minute. Select social network for quick authorization on the portal:

The second part contains:

• information about the participant - full name, passport details and place of residence for individual entrepreneurs, name, address - for organizations;
• confirmation of compliance with the requirements of the customer (for example, the availability of a special work permit - licenses, the availability of qualified personnel);
• declaration of absence of debts on obligatory fees. It also contains the assurance of the participant that there is no bankruptcy procedure in relation to him, and he conducts his activities without restrictions from the supervisory authorities;
• copies of papers that confirm that the product meets the established requirements;
• approval decision big deal- its original or a copy made;
• if the participant is entitled to benefits, an appropriate declaration (for example, belonging to an SME).

They do not have the right to demand information and documents that are not established by the law on the contract system from the participant. The law also contains a list of procurement documentation that the customer must place. This list contains the terms of reference. It is important to take this document seriously. It may contain range values, GOSTs or other regulatory and technical documents related to the product, rules for reading abbreviations, etc. All of these will come in handy at the application stage.

How to apply for an auction

Both parts of the application are submitted in the form of electronic documents simultaneously. This happens through the functionality of the ETP, where the auction will take place. To do this, the participant must be accredited.

You can submit an application, in accordance with the requirements established in the federal regulatory act on the contract system, from the moment the notice is posted until the end of the application deadline. The application is generated in personal account on site.

Operator trading platform may refuse to accept an application in the following cases:

• the participant violated the deadline for submitting applications;
• one participant submitted 2 or more applications (only one is allowed);
• documents are not signed enhanced electronic signature;
• the application was submitted less than three months before the end of accreditation for the ETP;
• if there are not enough funds on the participant's personal account to secure the application.

Consideration of the first parts of applications

Consideration of the first parts is devoted. The law dictates the procedure for evaluating applications, the reasons for their rejection, deadlines, etc. As stated in paragraph 2 of the article we are considering, the auction commission has seven days to consider the first parts from the moment the deadline for submitting bids expired.

The data provided in part 1 of the bids are checked for compliance with the provisions of the procurement documentation. As a result of consideration of 1 part of applications, their authors are recognized as participants in the auction or denied this.

Use of Part 4 of Art. 67 44-FZ

Paragraph 4 of the considered article of the federal law on the contract system refers to when the commission may not allow the participant to purchase. It is worth saying that the provisions of the federal law contain a closed list of grounds for not admitting a participant. There are 2 of them. The customer cannot refuse for other reasons.

Paragraph 4 of the article says that the commission can prevent a participant if:

• the participant did not indicate in the application the information contained in the provisions of the federal law;
• the specified data does not comply with the requirements of federal law or procurement documentation.

Application of Art. 67 of the law 44 fz: protocol for consideration of applications

• about serial numbers of applications;
• on the admission or non-admission of each participant, indicating why this or that participant is not allowed to purchase (specific reasons for refusal are also indicated);
• information about the decision of each member of the auction commission for each of the participants who submitted the application.

All members of the commission sign the protocol, send it to the ETP operator and place it in the EIS.

Participants will learn about the decision of the auction commission from the operator of the trading platform. After receiving the protocol, he is obliged to notify all applicants within an hour. The notice must include the reason for the refusal.

In a number of situations, consideration of applications is terminated, and the auction is declared invalid. This happens when:

• no applications have been submitted;
• only one application was submitted.

Definition of Article 67 of 44-FZ

44 fz strictly regulates the procurement procedure, regardless of the method of determining the supplier. An important part of any procedure is the evaluation of applications. The auction provides for 2 parts of the application, they are considered alternately.

Article 67 of the 44-FZ is devoted to consideration of part 1 of the applications. This article indicates the terms for consideration of 1 part of applications, the actions of the members of the auction commission, as well as the grounds for which the application may not be accepted.

Also in article number 67 normative act about the contract system, it is said that federal customers do not have the right to reject applications and prevent participants on other grounds not specified in the law. The law provides two grounds for non-admission of authors of 1 parts of applications for procurement:

• providing not all the necessary data or an incomplete package of documents;
• providing data that does not comply with the requirements of the law and customer documentation.

The most up-to-date news and explanations of experts on sensitive topics in the field of public procurement in the journal "Goszakupki.ru"

Article 67. Procedure for consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction

• checked today
• law dated 03/28/2019
• entered into force on 01.01.2014

There are no new versions of the article that have not entered into force.

Compare with the version of the article dated 01/01/2014

The auction commission checks the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction, containing the information provided for by Part 3 of Article 66 of this Federal Law, for compliance with the requirements established by the documentation for such an auction in relation to the purchased goods, works, services.

The term for consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction may not exceed seven days from the deadline for filing these applications, and if the initial (maximum) price of the contract does not exceed three million rubles, such a period may not exceed one business day from the date deadline for the submission of said applications.

Based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction containing the information provided for by Part 3 of Article 66 of this Federal Law, the auction commission decides on the admission of the procurement participant who submitted an application for participation in such an auction to participate in it and recognize this procurement participant a participant in such an auction or on refusal of admission to participation in such an auction in the manner and on the grounds provided for by paragraph 4 of this article.

A participant in an electronic auction is not allowed to participate in it if:

Denial of admission to participation in an electronic auction on grounds not provided for by part 4 of this article is not allowed.

Based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction, the auction commission draws up a protocol for consideration of applications for participation in such an auction, signed by all its members present at the meeting of the auction commission no later than the deadline for consideration of these applications. The specified protocol must contain information:

The protocol specified in part 6 of this article shall be sent by the customer to the operator of the electronic site no later than the deadline for consideration of applications for participation in an electronic auction and posted in a single information system.

If, based on the results of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction, the auction commission decided to refuse admission to participation in such an auction of all procurement participants who submitted applications for participation in it, or to recognize only one procurement participant who submitted an application for participation in such an auction by its participant, such an auction shall be recognized as invalid. Information on the recognition of such an auction as invalid shall be entered into the minutes specified in Part 6 of this Article.

Within one hour from the moment the operator of the electronic site receives the protocol specified in Part 6 of this Article, the operator of the electronic site is obliged to send to each participant in an electronic auction who has submitted an application for participation in it, or to a participant in such an auction who has submitted a single application for participation in it, a notification of the decision accepted in relation to their bids, information about the presence among the proposals of procurement participants recognized as participants in the electronic auction, proposals for the supply of goods of Russian origin in the event that the documentation for the electronic auction establishes conditions, prohibitions, restrictions on the admission of goods originating from a foreign state or group foreign states, works, services, respectively, performed, rendered by foreign persons, in accordance with Article 14 of this Federal Law. If the auction commission has made a decision to refuse admission to participation in such an auction of its participant, the notification of this decision must contain the rationale for its adoption, including an indication of the provisions of the documentation for such an auction that this application does not comply with, the proposals contained in this application that do not comply with the requirements of the documentation for such an auction, as well as the provisions of federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the violation of which served as the basis for making this decision to refuse.

• Encyclopedia of judicial practice. The procedure for considering the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction (Article 67 of the Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs")
• 1. General issues of evaluation of the first parts of applications
• 1.1. The list of information that the first part of the application for participation in the electronic auction must contain is closed
• 1.2. Rejection of applications containing false information about the product is possible only when considering the first parts of applications
• 1.3. Additional checks of the first parts of applications outside the seven-day period provided by law do not comply with the law
• 1.4. The absence in the application of consent to perform part of the work specified in the auction documentation is the basis for rejecting such an application in accordance with clause 2 of part 4 of article 67 of Law N 44-FZ
• 1.5. The proposal in the application for a product with better qualities than those specified by the customer in the documentation is legal if it fully meets the goals of the customer
• 1.6. If a participant does not indicate a trademark in the application, if any, it indicates that such an application does not comply with the requirements of Law N 44-FZ
• 1.7. The obligation of the participant to indicate in the application that the goods that are the object of procurement does not have a trademark is not provided for by law
• 1.8. The indication in the first part of the application of the indicator in the form of the exact value of N, with the indicator "not less than N" established in the documentation, complies with the requirements of the law and cannot serve as a basis for refusing admission to participate in the auction
• 1.9. The auction commission does not evaluate the materiality of technical errors made by the participant in the application
• 1.10. Evaluation of the application of the procurement participant for compliance with the auction documentation is the prerogative of the auction commission and cannot be replaced by the issuance of an opinion by an expert
• 1.11. The auction commission is not entitled to determine the sufficiency of the quantity of goods for the needs of the customer and the possibility of admitting a participant who offered a greater number of goods
• 2. Particular issues of evaluation of the first parts of applications
• 2.1. The assessment by the auction commission of the reliability of the information provided in the bids for participation in the competition by comparing them with information on the Internet without taking into account its relevance cannot be recognized as legal and justified
• 2.2. Evaluation by the auction commission of the reliability of the information provided in the applications for participation in the competition by comparing them with the information provided by third parties on their websites on the Internet is unlawful
• 2.3. Rejection by the auction commission of the application due to non-compliance of the packaging of goods proposed by the participant with the requirements of the auction documentation is lawful
• 2.4. If the customer indicated the requirements for the product by referring to GOST without determining the maximum and minimum values ​​​​of the indicators, the rejection of the application due to the lack of specific indicators of the goods in it is unlawful
• 2.5. Recognition by the auction commission of the application as not corresponding to the auction documentation only on the basis of specifying the material not in the line with the goods is unlawful
• 2.6. Recognition by the auction commission of an application that does not comply with the auction documentation only because it contains the wording "the product must comply with the documentation" instead of "will comply with the documentation" ("corresponds") is unlawful
• 2.7. If there are no indicators of the goods in the application, the protocol for consideration of applications does not require justification, which indicators of the goods are not indicated
• 2.8. In itself, the indication by the participant of several countries of origin of the goods that are the object of procurement does not give grounds for rejecting his application
• 2.9. In relation to goods manufactured in Russia, the indication of the word "Domestic" in the application is permissible and does not prevent the identification of the country of origin
• 2.10. Supplementing the application with a non-binding document indicating a product other than the auction documentation for the provision of the purchased service is not a basis for rejecting the application
• 2.11. The absence in the first part of the application of the participant of the offer on warranty obligations cannot serve as a basis for refusing admission to participate in the auction
• 2.12. Rejection of the application of the participant, filled in according to the instructions for filling out the application, in the case when such an instruction is drawn up improperly, indicates a violation of Law N 44-FZ by the auction commission and the customer
• 2.13. The expiration of the term of office of the sole executive body of an electronic auction participant, if a new one is not elected and the powers are not terminated, does not give grounds for rejecting his application

Encyclopedia judicial practice
The procedure for consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in an electronic auction
(Article 67 of the Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs")

1. General issues evaluation of the first parts of applications

1.1. The list of information that the first part of the application for participation in the electronic auction must contain is closed

The courts of the first and appeal instances rightly considered that the rejection of applications containing false information about the goods is possible only when considering the first parts of the applications. At other stages of the procurement procedures, a deviation is possible only if false information is provided in relation to the auction participant. In this regard, the courts came to the correct conclusion that the auction commission had no legal grounds for recognizing the application of the LLC at the stage of consideration of the second parts of the applications as not complying with the requirements of the electronic auction documentation due to the provision of false information about the supplied goods.

1.3. Additional checks of the first parts of applications outside the seven-day period provided by law do not comply with the law

The courts reasonably considered that an additional verification of the first part of the plaintiff's application outside the established seven-day period during the period of consideration by the court of the claim for recognition illegal actions on refusal to admit a procurement participant to participate in an electronic auction does not comply with the specified provisions governing the bidding procedure. The defendant did not cite the provisions of the Law on the contract system, allowing him to exercise in specified conditions additional checks.

1.4. The absence in the application of consent to perform part of the work specified in the auction documentation is the basis for rejecting such an application in accordance with clause 2 of part 4 of article 67 of Law N 44-FZ

The application of the company did not contain information about giving consent to the performance of the works specified in the section "General construction works" of the technical part of the documentation for the auction, namely, the production of the installation of underlying concrete layers in the amount of 22.5 sq.m, and the installation of coatings on a solution of dry mix with the preparation of a mortar in construction conditions from smooth unglazed ceramic tiles for floors of the same color in the amount of 200.3944 sq.m.

Failure to indicate in the application for consent to perform the specified general construction works was correctly regarded by the Unified Commission of the customer as a violation of the requirements of the documentation and the provisions of clause 2 of part 4 of Article 67 of the Law, which was reflected in the minutes of consideration of the first parts of applications for participation in the auction.

1.5. The proposal in the application for a product with better qualities than those specified by the customer in the documentation is legal if it fully meets the goals of the customer

The actions of the customer, who indicated the quality requirements in the auction documentation, technical specifications and the properties of the goods that he needs to carry out his activities, due to their needs, do not contradict the provisions of part 3 of article 34 of Law N 44-FZ. In this case, the indication of such characteristics in the documentation does not prevent the participants in placing an order from offering another product in the application that has similar or improved technical and functional characteristics and meets the needs of the customer. In this case, a product with improved characteristics is offered.

Thus, the courts reasonably indicated that the entrepreneur's application for a controversial position fully complies with the requirements of the Law

The courts examined the technical part of the auction documentation, LLC's application and found that LLC's application for disputed items fully complies with the requirements of Law N 44-FZ and the auction documentation.

The courts have indicated that a bidder's offer of a product with better characteristics serves the purpose effective use budget funds if it fully meets the goals of the customer. At the same time, the courts reasonably proceeded from the fact that the institution did not provide evidence to the contrary.

Under these circumstances, the conclusions of the courts that the disputed decision and order of the administration comply with the current legislation are correct, and when they are issued, the legal rights and interests of the applicant are not violated.

1.6. The failure by the participant to indicate in the application a trademark, if any, indicates that such an application does not comply with the requirements of subparagraph "b" of paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 66 of Law N 44-FZ

Based on the results of the study and evaluation in the manner prescribed by Chapter 7 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, the courts found that the auction documentation does not contain an indication of trademark, therefore, taking into account the above regulatory provisions, a participant in an open auction in the first part of the application must indicate the trademark (its verbal designation) (if any) in relation to the proposed product; bidders Nos. 1 and 2 admitted to participate in the open auction in the first parts of the bids for the medical gloves offered for supply manufactured by Ansell (UK) Ltd and Ansell Healthcare Europe N V in the column for the name of the proposed product indicated that "there is no trademark". Meanwhile, according to a letter from the Moscow representative office of the manufacturer Ansell Healthcare Europe dated<дата>all medical gloves manufactured by Ansell (UK) Ltd. and Ansell Healthcare Europe N.V., have individual trademarks; case materials confirm that medical gloves manufactured by Ansell (UK) Ltd. and Ansell Healthcare Europe N .V., have individual trademarks and are not released for free circulation without the indicated designations.

Thus, the courts came to the correct conclusion about the non-compliance of the applications of participants No. 1, 2 with the requirements of subparagraph "b" of paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 66 of the Law on the contract system and auction documentation.

The argument of the applicant of the cassation appeal that in subparagraph "b" of paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 66 of the Law on the contract system, procurement participants are given the right to choose to indicate information - either a trademark or the name of the manufacturer, cannot be taken into account as based on a misinterpretation, contrary to the literal content of this provision.

1.7. The obligation of the participant to indicate in the application that the goods that are the object of procurement does not have a trademark is not provided for by law

An application for participation in an auction, the subject of which is the supply of goods, must contain an indication of a trademark if such goods have a trademark. The obligation to indicate in the application for the absence of a trademark for the supplied goods is not provided for by law.

The conclusion of the courts that an application for participation in an auction, the subject of which is the supply of goods, must contain an indication of a trademark if such goods have a trademark, is correct. The obligation to indicate in the application for the absence of a trademark for the supplied goods is not provided for by law.

1.8. The indication in the first part of the application of the indicator in the form of the exact value of N, with the indicator "not less than N" established in the documentation, complies with the requirements of the law and cannot serve as a basis for refusing admission to participate in the auction

After analyzing and evaluating the content of the auction documentation, in particular the technical requirements for the materials used, the application of LLC, taking into account the above norms of the Law on the contract system, the court of appeal came to a reasonable conclusion that the indication of LLC in the first part of the application of the indicator in the form exact value "0.14" at set [at technical requirements] indicator "not less than 0.14" meets the requirements of paragraph 2.4 of the Interstate Standard GOST 10503-71 "Oil paints, ready for use. Specifications", approved by the Decree of the State Standard of the USSR of 05.08.1971 N 1358, and clause 2.4.2 of GOST 5233-89 (ST SEV 6229-88). Paintwork materials. Method for determining the hardness of coatings using a pendulum device, approved by Decree of the State Standard of the USSR of 03/27/1989 N 746, and does not contradict the requirements of the Law on the contract system and documentation of the auction in electronic form, since it is not less than 0.14.

Thus, the company complied with the requirements stipulated by Part 3 of Article 66 of the Law on the Contract System, and, therefore, the conclusions of the court of appeal that the auction commission has no grounds for refusing LLC admission to participate in the auction and, as a result, the legality of the said decisions and instructions of the antimonopoly authority.

1.9. The auction commission does not evaluate the materiality of technical errors made by the participant in the application

The powers of the auction commission include only checking the compliance of the participant's application with the requirements of the legislation and the auction documentation, which does not imply any assessment of the materiality of the errors made in the application. As the courts rightly noted, incorrect execution of the application is an entrepreneurial risk of the procurement participant and entails adverse consequences in the form of rejection of his application.

1.10. Evaluation of the application of the procurement participant for compliance with the auction documentation is the prerogative of the auction commission and cannot be replaced by the issuance of an opinion by an expert

The court of cassation recognizes the correct position of the court of first instance, which established that the first part of the application for participation in the auction submitted by the above participant met both the requirements of the auction documentation and the requirements of Part 3 of Article 66 of Law N 44-FZ, and therefore came to the correct the conclusion that there is a violation of the requirements of parts 4 and 5 of article 67 of Law N 44-FZ in the actions of the institution.

The Regional Arbitration Court correctly noted that, according to the expert’s conclusion, the latter did not study the consumer properties of the goods, but assessed the application of the procurement participant for compliance with the auction documentation, which contradicts the goals and objectives of the commodity expertise, and essentially replaces the functions of the auction commission, which is unacceptable.

1.11. The auction commission is not entitled to determine the sufficiency of the quantity of goods for the needs of the customer and the possibility of admission of the participant who offered large quantity goods

The auction commission is not involved in the preparation of the auction documentation and, when deciding on the admission of a participant to participate in the auction, is guided only by the terms of the approved auction documentation.

When considering the dispute, the courts established that the company was denied admission to participate in the auction due to the provision by this company of false information about the products offered for delivery, its actual non-compliance with the conditions of the tender documentation.

These conclusions were made by the auction commission on the basis of information about technical parameters for synthetic dialyzer "Bseries" model B-14R (article BML0314), model B-18R (article BML0318), received on the official website of the manufacturer for delivery of products in Chinese on the Internet: http://www.bainmedical.net/toxicansu /class, as well as from the English-language product catalog provided by the company with limited liability"Pilot-Group" (hereinafter referred to as the "Pilot-Group" company) is the official distributor of the company "Bane Medical Equipment (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.", other than those declared by the auction participant (by comparing the product article with the given technical parameters).

The courts, having analyzed the materials of the case, correctly concluded that the assessment of the reliability of the information provided in the applications for participation in the competition by comparing them with information on the Internet cannot be recognized as lawful and justified, since the auction commission used information from the website of the BeinMedicalEquipment company ( Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.": http://www.bainmedical.net/toxicansu/class, not updated since 2010; from the product catalog presented by the Pilot-Group company (on English language), it is also impossible to establish the relevance of the information contained in this catalog (the year is not specified).

2.2. Evaluation by the auction commission of the reliability of the information provided in the applications for participation in the competition by comparing them with the information provided by third parties on their websites on the Internet is unlawful

The court of first instance, having examined and evaluated the evidence presented in the case file in accordance with the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, found that the conclusion about the unreliability of the information provided by the Company was made by the department commission not on the basis of the manufacturer's information about the possible characteristics of coal, but on the basis of quality certificates, issued in relation to the coal of the corresponding producer and posted on the Internet on the websites of other organizations - suppliers of coal.

Pointing out that the auction commission had no grounds for not allowing the company to participate in the auction, the [first instance] court noted that for the supply in question, the important characteristics of the goods are the original factory packaging, compliance temperature regime on delivery, clearly marked on the packaging, registration of products in order, established by law. In turn, the weight indicator (packaging / packaging) of the goods is not a technical or qualitative property of the subject of the purchase, therefore, the offer for the supply of goods with other weight indicators, according to the court of first instance, cannot be considered as a non-compliance of the application with the requirements of the auction documentation.

It is correct that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal is that based on the powers of the auction commission, which checks the first parts of the bids for their compliance with the requirements established by the auction documentation in relation to the purchased goods, the customer's auction commission had sufficient grounds to recognize the first part of the company's bid as not complying with the requirements of the documentation .

Justifying the need to establish the parameters of the purchased goods, such as the number of packages and the weight of one package, the applicant pointed out the importance of these performance characteristics goods, established in order to optimize labor costs when accepting the delivered goods, carrying out product examinations, for the rational placement of goods in the customer's warehouse and at the specialist's workplace. The packing of goods proposed by the company, which significantly increases the number of individual packages of goods, will not allow the customer to comply with the conditions of his activity and may entail additional costs.

2.4. If the customer indicated the requirements for the product by referring to GOST without determining the maximum and minimum values ​​​​of the indicators, the rejection of the application due to the lack of specific indicators of the goods in it is unlawful

Based on the results of consideration of the first parts of the applications, the commission of the customer decided to reject the application of the LLC on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 67 of the Law on the contract system due to the discrepancy between the information provided for in part 3 of article 66 of this Federal Law and the requirements of the documentation for such an auction, namely:

The section "Road Signs" does not indicate specific indicators established by clause 5 of GOST R 52290-2004 (clause 5.5, photometric characteristics (retro-reflection coefficient), clause 5.6 colorimetric characteristics (chromaticity coordinates (x, y) of the intersection points of the boundary lines of color areas for image elements of signs, which violates the requirements of paragraph 1.1.2 of paragraph 1.1 of section 1 of the documentation on an open auction in electronic form in terms of indicating specific indicators of the materials used);

The section "Road reflectors" does not specify specific indicators established by clause 5.4 of GOST R 50971-2011 (colorimetric characteristics (chromaticity coordinates of the corner points of color areas), which violates the requirements of clause 1.1.2 clause 1.1 of section 1 of the documentation on an open auction in electronic form in terms of indicating specific indicators of the materials used.

The antimonopoly body [rightfully] came to the conclusion that the customer did not indicate the indicators that allow determining the compliance of the purchased goods used in the performance of work, including the maximum and (or) minimum values ​​of such indicators, as well as the values ​​​​of indicators that cannot be changed. , therefore, the commission of the customer could check the application only for the presence of indicators (indicated or not).

2.5. Recognition by the auction commission of the application as not corresponding to the auction documentation only on the basis of specifying the material not in the line with the goods is unlawful

Rejecting the administration’s argument that the first part of the LLC’s application does not contain an indication of the material used in the performance of work - concrete grade W4, from which wall rings KS 10.9 and KS 10.3 should be made, the courts, having considered the application of the company, came to the conclusion that there are application for information about the material - concrete grade W4.

Without disputing this fact, the administration refers to the fact that the material is indicated in a separate line from the product to which it is set as a characteristic.

As correctly established by the courts and follows from the case materials, the structure of the description of the names of these products in relation to the materials from which they must be made, in the table "Specification of materials for the element DK-5, DK-9, DK-12" does not contain a clear indication of order of presentation of information about the material. Therefore, the commission had no grounds for recognizing the company's application as not corresponding to the auction documentation only on the basis of indicating the material not in the line with the goods.

Under such circumstances, the courts of the first and appeal instances rightfully refused the administration to satisfy the stated requirements, recognizing the disputed decision of the antimonopoly body as lawful and justified.

2.6. Recognition by the auction commission of an application that does not comply with the auction documentation only because it contains the wording "the product must comply with the documentation" instead of "will comply with the documentation" ("corresponds") is unlawful

In the present case, the applicant insists on his own interpretation of the above provisions of Articles 66 and Law N 44-FZ in connection with the following: since suppliers in their applications for participation in an electronic auction declare that the goods must comply with the regulatory and technical documentation in accordance with the requirements terms of reference customer, then it is not possible to draw a direct and reliable conclusion from this that the delivered goods will comply or comply with this regulatory and technical documentation (in this case, the emphasis in the above argument is on the words "should" and "will be").

With such reasoning, the management and the courts reasonably considered that the indication by the auction participants in the table of information about the functional characteristics (consumer properties) and quality characteristics of the goods of the phrase "Regulatory and technical documentation to which the goods must comply (characteristics of goods)" is not legal basis to refuse admission of their (their applications) to participate in the auction, since these applications indicate specific indicators of the used (supplied) goods, and the basis for refusing to admit applications was the form for providing information on specific indicators of the goods.

In other words, the customer (its auction commission) attaches more importance to the form of bid submission itself than to the content of bids (their essence); through the semantic interpretation by the customer of a separate phrase indicated in the bids, the semantic load of the content of the bids as a whole (in the unity of all their parts) is distorted, the proper perception of the real will of the auction participants, their readiness to supply the customer with products that fully satisfy his needs, in accordance with the specified by him, is lost the same regulatory and technical requirements.

2.7. If there are no indicators of the goods in the application, the protocol for consideration of applications does not require justification, which indicators of the goods are not indicated

The bid was not allowed to participate in the auction, because the bid was completely missing product indicators.

The protocol for this application correctly states that the application does not provide the information established by the documentation, namely the specific indicators of the goods. In this case, it was not required to justify which particular indicators of the goods were not indicated, since they were not indicated at all.

Thus, the decision of the unified commission on the non-admission of a participant with registration number to participate in the auction is lawful, and on this fact there were no grounds for bringing the full name to administrative responsibility.

2.8. In itself, the indication by the participant of several countries of origin of the goods that are the object of procurement does not give grounds for rejecting his application

The reason for the company's refusal to be admitted to participation in the electronic auction was the fact that the LLC's application contains the name of the material offered for delivery, indicating three countries of origin of the goods: the USA, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. At the same time, such actions are regarded precisely as a failure to provide information provided for in part 3 of article 66.

As the courts correctly pointed out, the concept of "country of origin of goods" is defined in the Customs Code Customs Union, according to paragraph 1 of Article 58 of which the country of origin of goods is the country in which the goods were completely produced or subjected to sufficient processing (processing) in accordance with the criteria established by the customs legislation of the customs union.

At the same time, the documents confirming the country of origin of goods are a declaration of origin of goods or a certificate of origin of goods (Part 2 of Article 59). The courts correctly noted that the submission of these documents to confirm the country of origin of the goods is not provided for by Law No. 44-FZ.

The disputed auction documentation does not contain indications of the order in which information about the name of the country of origin of the goods (one country or several) is presented in the application. At the same time, the application of the LLC itself contains an indication of the name of the country of origin of the goods, and the auction commission of the customer did not establish the unreliability of the information provided by the company.

Taking into account that the actually necessary information is reflected in the LLC’s application, and the auction documentation did not contain any recommendations for presenting information with the aim of a uniform and objective approach to the evaluation of applications, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion that the auction commission unlawfully denied the company admission to participate in an electronic auction on the basis of part 3 of article 66 of Law N 44-FZ.

Attention

There are court decisions that contradict the above approach.

2.8.1. The indication in the first part of the application of several countries of origin of goods is a failure to provide information on the country of origin

As follows from the materials of the case, the basis for the refusal of the authorized body in the admission of "..." LLC to participate in the auction with reference to paragraph 1 of part 4 of Art. 67 of Law N 44-FZ was the indication by the participant in the first part of the application of the names of several countries of origin of the goods, which did not allow the auction commission to make an unambiguous conclusion about the specific country of origin of the goods.

The courts found that the company in the application indicated several countries of origin of the goods. In the section of the application "specific indicators, trademark, name of the country of origin of the goods offered for delivery" in relation to the goods, the manufacturer "T ..." (Japan, Belgium, USA) is indicated, for [other] items of the application, the company also indicates the countries of origin of the supplied goods - Japan, Belgium, USA, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Great Britain, France.

The courts reasonably agreed with the conclusion of the antimonopoly authority that the auction commission had legal grounds to refuse LLC "..." admission to participate in the electronic auction on the grounds of violation of the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 66 of Law N 44-FZ in connection with the failure to provide information about the country of origin.

2.9. In relation to goods manufactured in Russia, the indication of the word "Domestic" in the application is permissible and does not prevent the identification of the country of origin

The documents submitted by [the participant] as part of the application for participation in the electronic auction made it possible to identify the goods offered by the company for delivery as originating in Russia. Thus, the indication by the company in the application of the goods as "Domestic, Stavropol Territory, the city of Stavropol", "Domestic, Krasnodar Territory", indicates that the country of origin of the goods is Russian Federation, which complies with the requirements of the Law on the contract system and documentation of the auction.

2.10. Supplementing the application with a non-binding document indicating a product other than the auction documentation for the provision of the purchased service is not a basis for rejecting the application

The participant additionally attached electronic document, which indicated a different software than in the electronic auction documentation. At the same time, the application of this additional document is not provided for by either Federal Law N 44-FZ or clause 5.3 of the auction documentation, and therefore is not mandatory in this case.

The Court of Appeal rightly held that the attached file was additional information by virtue of the provisions of clause 2 of part 3 of article 66 of Federal Law N 44-FZ, not subject to submission and, accordingly, assessment by the auction commission, and its content in itself does not exclude the consent of the participant expressed in the first part of the application for the provision of services on the terms provided for by the documentation on electronic auction.

2.11. The absence in the first part of the application of the participant of the proposal for warranty obligations cannot serve as grounds for refusing admission to participate in the auction

According to the auction documentation, the warranty period is set in accordance with the application of the participant and is 12 months from the date of signing the act of acceptance and transfer of goods. The supplier for the period of the warranty period provides a full range of free services: for warranty repairs; elimination of defects; transport services; for the delivery of equipment to enterprises carrying out repairs, and back. During the warranty period, the supplier undertakes to carry out warranty repairs at his own expense.

After analyzing the provisions of the auction documentation in conjunction with [the provisions of Article.Article. 66, Law N 44-FZ], the courts reasonably considered that the requirement established by the customer for the warranty period of the supplied equipment and the volume of guarantees provided is not the indicator (characteristic) of the goods that the auction participant must indicate in the first part of the application, but only relates to the subject supplies.

In addition, the calculation of the warranty period is made by the customer dependent on the moment of execution of the act of acceptance and transfer of goods, which is not reliably known to the auction participants, which also confirms the illegality of the requirement to indicate a specific warranty period for equipment at the stage of filing the first part of the application for participation in the auction.

2.12. Rejection of the application of the participant, filled in according to the instructions for filling out the application, in the case when such an instruction is drawn up improperly, indicates a violation of Law N 44-FZ by the auction commission and the customer

As established by the courts, the instructions for filling out the application for participation in the auction contain contradictions when using the sign ";", namely, from the provisions of the instruction it is impossible to establish whether it is permissible to present several possible values ​​​​of the indicator in the application for participation in the auction or whether it is necessary to provide a single exact value indicator.

Thus, the customer did not establish proper instructions for filling out an application for participation in the auction, which is a violation by the customer of paragraph 2 of part 1 of article 64 of the Law on the contract system and led to a violation of the auction commission of part 5 of article 67 of the said Federal Law.

conclusions single commission of the customer that there are grounds for recognizing the Company's application as not complying with the requirements of Law N 44-FZ are unreasonable.

If you are a user of the online version of the GARANT system, you can open this document right now or request hotline in system.

In order to exercise control over the spending of budgetary funds, the authorities conduct purchases of goods or services in the manner of an open competition (auction). Information about the competition is posted on the official portal on the Internet, and any individual or entity by submitting an application.

The rules for considering an application are defined in Art. 67, law no. 44.

Scope of regulation Art. 67 44-FZ

The protocol is subject to placement in the EIS before the deadline for consideration of applications(part 7 of article 67). Part 9 Art. 67 states that the data of the protocol on persons admitted and not admitted to further participation in the auction, as well as on the reasons for non-admission and on the foreign origin of the goods or services offered, must be published in the EIS within an hour from the moment of signing.

Application of the provisions of the article

The main problems in applying the provisions of Art. 67 arise when justifying the legality of admission or non-admission of individual participants to further participation in the auction. To solve such problems, independent experts are involved in the commission that considers the first parts of applications for the tender, and the commission's decisions are checked by employees of the antimonopoly service (FAS).

The decision of the commission can be appealed in court at the initiative of the participants or independent experts who control the course of the competition.

Unreasonable admission or refusal to the procurement participant may lead to the commission members being held liable under part 2 of Art. 7.30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which involves the imposition of a fine in the amount of 5000-30000 rubles.

In order to avoid litigation with the commission when considering the first parts of applications under Art. 67 of law No. 44, it is necessary:

• give all known characteristics of the goods or services offered;
• indicate the characteristics in the ranges required by the auction documentation;
• avoid offering goods or services with more suitable, but different indicators than required by the terms of the procurement;
• specify the values ​​of indicators (or ranges of values).

An example of specifying values ​​for a product: specifying not the expiration date, but the expiration date of such a period for each specific unit of the product.

Bringing even insignificant, in the opinion of the participant, characteristics of the proposed product or service will help prevent refusal due to incomplete information in the application. information about yourself or the proposed product, adjusting to the conditions of a particular auction.

Also, Law No. 504 added mandatory content of the protocol with information about the foreign origin of the goods proposed by the procurement participant.

The possibility of passing the first stage of the electronic auction largely depends on the correct preparation of the first part of the application. It is important to pay attention to the completeness of information about a product or service, the reliability of information, as well as the availability of supporting documents. Information about the product should be addressed to specific items of the tender documentation.