Comparable works. How to evaluate bids against established criteria. Respect significance limits

Good afternoon!

You trade according to 223-FZ, as follows from the documentation.

An example from practice, but according to 44-fz. The situation is quite similar to yours. The participant submitted, as part of the documents, a certificate of completed contracts, and sent the contracts themselves to the special unit. The commission did not evaluate the contracts, the court recognized these actions as illegal. Restrictions on competition, answering your question, I do not see. You have the opportunity to present Required documents in the manner prescribed by law.

Arbitration Court of the Northwestern District Case No. А21-4124/2015

The courts of two instances found that part of the application (copies of state
contracts marked "Secret", on the basis of which the customer, according to the data
contracts issued certificates submitted by the Company at the place of application) sent along with cover letter dated 05/05/2015 No. 203s to the special unit at the address: Kaliningrad, D. Donskoy street, house 1, and registered by the Department of Special Communications of the Government of the Kaliningrad Region on 05/05/2015 (entry No. 142s).
This procedure for sending documents containing information,
constituting a state secret, complies with the requirements of Articles 16 and 27 of the Law on State Secrets, which was reasonably pointed out by the Court of Appeal in the appealed decision. The society was not able to send copies of state contracts marked "Secret" to the unified commission in any other way.
The deadline set by the tender documentation for the submission of applications
(05/06/2015 10 hours 30 minutes), the Company complied with.
In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal came to
a legitimate conclusion that StroyProm LLC has taken all measures depending on it to confirm compliance with indicator 2.2.1
Information card. Nothing else follows from the materials of the case and the defendants do not
proven.
The courts also found that with a cover letter dated 05.05.2015
No. 203s and copies of state contracts received by the special unit with
marked "Secret" on 05/05/2015, that is, before the consideration of applications, was
acquainted with the chairman of the unified commission of the Competition Agency Shirova D.I., which is confirmed by the presence of her signature on this cover letter.
Thus, despite the fact that the chairman of the commission was aware of
receipt from StroyProm LLC of copies of state contracts in
confirmation of compliance with the requirements for indicator 2.2.1 of criterion No. 2, and as part of the application, the Company submitted information mail with notification of the procedure for submitting state contracts and a certificate of work performed under these contracts, the tender commission did not take into account the documents submitted by the plaintiff, in connection with which the application of StroyProm LLC was assigned a zero value for the controversial indicator .
The absence of the members of the unified commission of the right to evaluate state
contracts classified as "Secret" due to their lack of access to information constituting a state secret, in this case does not indicate the absence of violations on the part of the commission when evaluating the Company's application.
Access order officials to the information that
state secret is regulated by the Law on State Secrets, and
also relevant normative documents approved
Government Russian Federation, and can be implemented in relation to
members of a single committee.

Therefore, the Society was entitled to use the documents
containing information constituting a state secret for the purpose of
confirmation of compliance with the requirements of the tender documentation for
indicator 2.2.1 of Criterion No. 2 and subject to the procedure for transferring such
information, established by law about state secrets.Taking into account the stated reference of the Competition Agency to the fact that the Company
information constituting a state secret was not requested, are based on a misinterpretation of the law.Based on the foregoing, the cassation instance agrees with the conclusion
Court of Appeal that due to unlawful refusal to
consideration of the appropriately sent in confirmation
compliance with indicator 2.2.1 of criterion No. 2 of government contracts with
labeled "Secret" by a single commission violated the procedure for counting
points assigned to applications of persons admitted to participate in the competition, which
is a material violation of the competition.

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The Department for the Development of the Contract System of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia considered an appeal on the issue of clarifying the provisions federal law dated April 5, 2013 N 44-FZ "On contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" (hereinafter - Law N 44-FZ) and informs.

Procurement documentation for state and municipal needs is developed by the customer independently in accordance with the requirements for the content of procurement documentation, established by the provisions of Law N 44-FZ and the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of Article 31 of Law N 44-FZ define a list of uniform requirements established by the customer for procurement participants.

We also note that, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 31 of Law N 44-FZ, the Government of the Russian Federation has the right to establish for procurement participants certain types goods, works, services, the procurement of which is carried out through tenders with limited participation, two-stage competitions, closed competitions with limited participation, closed two-stage competitions or auctions, additional requirements.

Thus, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 4, 2015 N 99 establishes additional requirements for participants in the procurement of certain types of goods, works, services.

At the same time, in accordance with Part 6 of Article 31 of Law N 44-FZ, customers are not entitled to establish requirements for procurement participants in violation of the requirements of Law N 44-FZ.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 32 of Law N 44-FZ, in order to evaluate bids, final proposals of procurement participants, the customer in the procurement documentation may establish such an evaluation criterion as the qualifications of procurement participants, including whether they have work experience related to the subject of the contract ( paragraph 4 of part 1 of article 32 of Law N 44-FZ).

Rules for evaluating bids, final offers of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs (hereinafter referred to as procurement) in order to identify the best of the proposed conditions for the execution of a contract during the procurement, as well as the maximum significance of each criterion for evaluating bids, final offers of participants purchases are approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2013 N 1085 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

According to paragraph 3 of the Rules, evaluation is the process of identifying, in accordance with the conditions for determining suppliers (contractors, performers) according to the evaluation criteria and in the manner established in the procurement documentation in accordance with the requirements of the Rules, the best conditions for the execution of the contract specified in the bids (offers) of procurement participants that were not rejected.

According to subparagraph "b" of paragraph 27 of the Rules, the indicator of the non-monetary evaluation criterion "qualification of procurement participants" may be the participant's experience in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume.

Given the above, in order to identify the best of the proposed conditions for the execution of the contract when evaluating bids, the customer can set such an indicator of the non-monetary evaluation criterion "qualification of procurement participants" as "volumes of successful completion of similar work" as the experience of the participant in the successful completion of work of a comparable nature.

At the same time, copies of executed similar contracts (agreements) for a certain period of time submitted as part of the application can be documents confirming information on such an indicator as the participant's experience in successfully completing work of a comparable nature and volume.

At the same time, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that clarifications of a state authority have legal force, if this body is endowed, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, with special competence to issue clarifications on the application of the provisions of regulatory legal acts.

In accordance with the Regulations on the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 5, 2008 N 437, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia is not empowered to clarify the legislation of the Russian Federation.

On the establishment in the procurement documentation of the requirement for experience in the successful completion of work of a comparable nature and volume

• ← How should UTII be calculated individual entrepreneur upon termination of activity through one of the objects retail(shopping pavilion), if the specified facility was closed in the middle of the month: for the month during which the termination of activities through the retail facility was made, or for the actual number of days of retail trade through this retail facility?
• Administration municipality(urban district) and the organization entered into an agreement on the installation and operation of an advertising structure for five years (an advertising structure is installed on a municipal land plot). Upon the expiration of the contract, the organization sold the advertising structure to an entrepreneur who exploited it in his own interests (posted ads on his website) for three months (without concluding an agreement with the administration), and after own initiative dismantled. Is the administration of the municipality entitled to recover unjust enrichment from the entrepreneur in court for the period of using the advertising structure? →

ARBITRATION COURT OF THE SAKHALIN REGION

In the name of the Russian Federation

SOLUTION

693240, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Communist Avenue, 28,

Fax 460 - 945, tel. 460 - 903 http: [email protected]

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (cases A59 - 3392/2015

November 26, 2015

Arbitration Court consisting of:

presiding __J A V A Sh V I L I V. N.______

when maintaining the protocol of the court session by the secretary BABIYCHUK V. E.

considered at the court session the case on the applications of the company with limited liability"Pass" (OGRN 1026501019027, TIN 6509003284) and municipal budget institution municipal formation "Kholmsky city district" "Department capital construction” (OGRN 1126509000584, TIN 6509021692) to the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Sakhalin Region (OGRN 1026500532321, TIN 6501026378) and to third parties - the administration of the municipal formation Kholmsky City District and LLC Spetsstroy-Sakhalin decisions and instructions of 04.24.2015 in case No. 192/15.

The meeting was attended by:

from the applicant - KRIVOLAPOV N.Yu. - from LLC "Pereval" - by proxy (in the file).

from the defendant - TIKHENKY OL - Head of Department.

from third parties - BULATOVA N.Yu. - from the administration of the Moscow Region - by proxy (in the case).

u s t a n o v i l:

The municipal budgetary institution of the municipal formation "Kholmsky City District" "Capital Construction Department" (hereinafter - the applicant, institution, OKS) and the limited liability company "Pereval" (hereinafter - the applicant, the company) filed a lawsuit with the Federal Antimonopoly Service for of the Sakhalin Region (hereinafter referred to as the antimonopoly authority, OFAS, management commission) to invalidate the decision dated April 24, 2015 in case No. 192/15 on violation of procurement legislation, which recognized the complaint of Spetsstroy-Sakhalin LLC as partially substantiated, and the customer - MBU MO "Kholmsky City District" "Department of Capital Construction" was found to have violated the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8, Part 6 of Article 30, Clause 4 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the Federal Law on the Contract System, Clause 27 of the Application Evaluation Rules. They also ask to invalidate the order No. 05 - 138/15 issued on the basis of this decision.

In support of their claims, the applicants pointed out that the inclusion in the open tender documentation of such a criterion for evaluating applications for participation in the tender as “the participant’s experience in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume”, which assesses the total cost of work performed on contracts (agreements) with similar works, complies with the provisions of Part 1 of Article 32 of the Federal Law of 05. 04. 13 No. 44 - Federal Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" (hereinafter - the Federal Law No. 44 - FZ, Law on the contract system) and does not lead to a limit on the number of procurement participants. The need to determine in the tender documentation the criteria used in determining the supplier, contractor, contractor and their significance values ​​is indicated in part 4 of article 32 of the Law. The conclusion of the antimonopoly authority that the customer violated the legislation on tenders by establishing as indicators revealing the content of the non-monetary evaluation criterion (experience in performing work) indicating the minimum values ​​required by the customer is untenable, since the legislator has not given the concept of the term “comparable volume”. Establishing the volume of involvement of co-executors from among small businesses in the amount of at least 15% of the contract price, according to the applicants, does not contradict the provisions of part 6 of article 30 of the Law on the contract system. Other arguments set forth in the statements and additional explanations were also cited.

The disputed decision and order, according to them, violate the rights of the applicants to organize and conduct procurement for the needs of the institution, and the company - as the winner of the competition - to fulfill the contract concluded with it.

The applicant's representative, Pereval LLC, supported the requirements in full at the hearing.

The defendant in the submitted response to the statement, supported by his representative at the court session, did not recognize the applicant's claim, considers the decision and the order lawful and in accordance with the current legislation on the grounds set forth in the disputed decision, response, asks to refuse satisfaction.

In the course of the consideration of the case, by a ruling dated 27.07.15, the court involved in the case as third parties that did not file independent claims, the administration of the municipal formation "Kholmsky urban district" and the limited liability company "Spetsstroy - Sakhalin".

The administration of the municipality "Kholmsky urban district" in the submitted response to the application, supported by its representative at the hearing, agreed with the position of the applicants, requests to be satisfied.

Spetsstroy-Sakhalin LLC did not submit a response to the application, did not send its representative to the court session, and was notified of the time and place of the case.

The applicant MBU "OKS" also did not send his representative to the court session, he was notified about the time and place of the consideration of the case.

By way of Article Section II. Proceedings in the arbitration court of first instance. Claim proceedings > Chapter 19 statement of claim, additional evidence, as well as in the absence of persons participating in the case" target="_blank"> 156 APC of the Russian Federation, the court considers the case without the participation of the notified and absent participants in the process.

After hearing the representatives of the persons participating in the case, having studied the materials of the case, the court comes to the following.

In accordance with the articles and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the arbitration court has jurisdiction over disputes about challenging non-normative legal acts of state authorities, local governments, decisions and actions (inaction) government agencies, local governments affecting the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activity.

Based on part 1 of Article Section III. Proceedings in the Arbitration Court of First Instance in Cases Arising from Administrative and Other Public Legal Relations > Article 198. The right to apply to an arbitration court with an application for the recognition of non-normative legal acts as invalid, decisions and actions (inaction) illegal has the right to apply to the arbitration court with an application for invalidation of non-normative legal acts, illegal decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials, if it is believed that the contested non-normative legal act, decision and action (inaction) do not comply with the law or other regulatory legal act

According to part 4 of the article Section III. Proceedings in the Arbitration Court of First Instance in Cases Arising from Administrative and Other Public Legal Relations > Article 200 contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials, the arbitration court in a court session checks the contested act or its individual provisions, contested decisions and actions (inaction) and establishes their compliance with the law or other th normative legal act, establishes whether the contested act, decision and actions (omission) violate the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of business and other economic activities.

Taking into account the provisions of these norms and explanations given in the joint resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 01.07.1996 No. 6/8, the basis for the adoption of a court decision on the recognition of illegal decisions, actions (inaction) of state bodies is the simultaneous inconsistency of this decision, action (inaction) with the law or other legal act, as well as the violation by the disputed decision of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant who applied to the court with the corresponding demand.

Thus, the subject of proof in the present case is the simultaneous inconsistency of the disputed action, decision with the law or other regulatory legal act, as well as the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant.

Therefore, in order to invalidate non-normative legal acts, two conditions must be present simultaneously: the non-compliance of the disputed non-normative legal acts with the law or other regulatory legal act and the violation by these non-normative legal acts of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial activity and other economic.

The court established and is confirmed by the materials of the case that the municipal customer - the municipal budgetary institution of the municipal formation "Kholmsky urban district" "Department of capital construction" of the Sakhalin region developed and approved the tender documentation and posted on 16. 03. 15 on the official website on the Internet http:// zakupki.gov.ru. for holding an open tender for the object: “Construction of a highway along the street. Victory - st. Admiral Makarov, including PSD, notification No. 0361300009115000049.

The initial (maximum) price of the contract is determined in the amount of 379,462,030 rubles.

The deadline for submission of bids in accordance with the notice of an open competition is 16.04.15 at 10:00.

Subparagraph 2 of paragraph 19 of the Information Card of the open tender of the tender documentation for procurement participants establishes the criteria for evaluating applications for participation in an open tender, the magnitude of the significance of these criteria.

"2. Qualification of procurement participants.

To evaluate applications for participation in the competition according to the specified criterion, each such application is assigned a value from 0 to 100 points.

April 15, 15 Spetsstroy-Sakhalin LLC filed a complaint with the antimonopoly authority against the provisions of the open tender documentation, which, in its opinion, does not comply with the requirements of Federal Law No. 44-FZ.

Based on the results of an unscheduled inspection on 24.04.15. the contested decision was made, by which the complaint of Spetsstroy-Sakhalin LLC was recognized as partially substantiated, and the customer was found to have violated the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8, Part 6 of Article 30, Clause 4 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the Federal Law on the Contract System, Clause 27 of the Rules for Evaluating Applications, and he (the customer) was issued an order, according to which the customer is obliged to cancel purchase No. 0361300009115000049 by canceling all approved documents.

Considering the decision of the OFAS to be unlawful and violating their rights and legitimate interests for the right to make purchases, the applicants applied to the court with this application.

Relations aimed at meeting state and municipal needs in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement of goods, works, services, ensure publicity and transparency in the implementation of such procurement, prevent corruption and other abuses in the field of such procurement, in terms of: - 1) planning procurement of goods, works, services; - 2) definitions of suppliers (contractors, performers); - 3) the conclusion of a civil law contract, the subject of which is the supply of goods, the performance of work, the provision of services (including the acquisition of real estate or the lease of property), on behalf of the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipality, as well as a budgetary institution or other legal entity in accordance with Parts 1, 4 and 5 of Article 15 of this Federal Law (hereinafter referred to as the contract); - 4) features of the execution of contracts; - 5) monitoring the procurement of goods, works, services; - 6) audit in the field of procurement of goods, works, services; - 7) control over compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts on the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs (hereinafter referred to as control in the field of procurement) are regulated by the Federal Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods , works, services to meet state and municipal needs” dated 05.04.13 No. 44-FZ (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the contract system, Federal Law No. 44-FZ).

The contract system in the field of procurement, by virtue of Article 6 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ, is based on the principles of openness, transparency of information about the contract system in the field of procurement, ensuring competition, professionalism of customers, stimulating innovation, unity of the contract system in the field of procurement, responsibility for the effectiveness of ensuring state and municipal needs, procurement efficiency.

Part 2 of Article 8 of the Law on the Contract System establishes that competition in procurement should be based on the observance of the principle of fair price and non-price competition between procurement participants in order to identify the best conditions for the supply of goods. It is prohibited for customers, specialized organizations, their officials, procurement commissions, members of such commissions, procurement participants to take any actions that contradict the requirements of this Federal Law, including those that lead to restriction of competition, in particular, to an unreasonable restriction on the number of procurement participants.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 48 of the Law on the Contract System, an open tender is understood as a tender in which information about the procurement is communicated by the customer to an unlimited number of persons by placing it in a single information system notices of such a tender, tender documentation and procurement participants are subject to uniform requirements.

In accordance with part 3 of Article 48 of the said Federal Law, in order to conduct an open tender, the customer develops and approves the tender documentation.

As follows from the materials of the case and the persons participating in the case are not disputed, the authorized body (ACS) took actions to place an order by holding an open tender “Construction of a highway on the street. Victory - st. Admiral Makarov, including PSD, notification No. 0361300009115000049.

According to the decision of the Commission of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia for the Sakhalin Region dated April 24, 2015 in case No. 192/15, the UKS was found to have violated the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8 of the Law on the Contract System.

After examining and evaluating the evidence presented in the case file in accordance with Article , the court comes to the following conclusions.

By virtue of clause 1 of part 1 of article 50 of the Law on the contract system, the tender documentation, along with the information specified in the notice of an open tender, must contain, among other things, the name and description of the object of procurement and the terms of the contract in accordance with article 33 of this Federal Law.

Part 3 of Article 33 of the Law on the Contract System establishes that it is not allowed to include in the procurement documentation (including in the form of quality requirements, technical specifications goods, works or services, requirements for functional characteristics (consumer properties) of the goods) requirements for the manufacturer of the goods, for the procurement participant (including requirements for the qualification of the procurement participant, including the availability of work experience), as well as requirements for the business reputation of the procurement participant, requirements to its production capacity, technological equipment, labor, financial and other resources necessary for the production of goods, the supply of which is the subject of the contract, for the performance of work or the provision of services that are the subject of the contract, unless the possibility of establishing such requirements for the procurement participant is provided for by the Law on the contract system.

According to Clauses 4 and 9 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the Law on the Contract System, the tender documentation, along with the information specified in the notice of an open tender, must contain the content requirements provided for in Article 51 of this Federal Law, including the description of the offer of an open tender participant, form, composition of an application for participation in an open tender and instructions for filling it out, while it is not allowed to establish requirements that entail limiting the number of participants in an open tender or restricting access to participation in an open tender and criteria for evaluating applications for participation in an open tender, significance values these criteria, the procedure for consideration and evaluation of applications for participation in an open tender in accordance with this Federal Law.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of part 2 of article 51 of the Law on the contract system, if the tender documentation specifies such a criterion for evaluating applications for participation in the tender as the qualification of an open tender participant, the application of an open tender participant may also contain documents confirming his qualifications, if In this case, the absence of these documents is not grounds for recognizing the application as not complying with the requirements of the Law on the contract system.

Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Part 1 of Article 32 of the Law on the Contract System determine that in order to evaluate bids, final proposals of procurement participants, the customer in the procurement documentation establishes the following criteria: the price of the contract and the qualifications of procurement participants, including whether they have financial resources, on the right of ownership or other legal basis of the equipment and other material resources, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level.

The procedure for evaluating bids, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs in order to identify the best of the proposed conditions for the execution of a contract during the procurement, as well as the limiting values ​​​​of the significance of each criterion for evaluating an application, determine the Rules for evaluating applications, final proposals of procurement participants goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2013 No. 1085 (hereinafter - Rules No. 1085).

These Rules apply to all purchases (clause 2 of Rule No. 1085).

Subparagraph "b" of paragraph 4 of Regulation No. 1085 provides that in order to evaluate bids (proposals), the customer establishes in the procurement documentation the following criteria, characterized as non-monetary evaluation criteria: qualifications of procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources belonging to them on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level.

According to paragraph 27 of these Rules, the indicators of the non-monetary assessment criterion “the qualifications of the procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources that they own on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain level of qualification” can be: a) qualification labor resources(managers and key specialists) proposed to perform work, provide services; b) the experience of the participant in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume; c) the provision of the procurement participant with material - technical resources in terms of whether the procurement participant has its own or leased production facilities, technological equipment necessary for the performance of work, the provision of services; d) provision of the procurement participant with labor resources; e) business reputation of the procurement participant.

According to paragraph 28 of Regulation No. 1085, evaluation of bids (offers) according to the non-monetary evaluation criterion "qualification of procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources that belong to them on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, work experience, associated with the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain level of qualification "is carried out if the procurement documentation in accordance with clause 10 of these Rules establishes indicators that reveal the content of the relevant evaluation criterion, indicating (if necessary) the minimum minimum required by the customer or the maximum value provided for in paragraph two of clause 11 of these Rules.

In the opinion of the antimonopoly authority, due to such a limitation by the customer of the indicator of the criterion "Qualifications of the procurement participant", the procurement participant who successfully performs construction work according to this indicator not for state needs will be unreasonably assessed at 0 points by the tender commission, which clearly does not correspond to the objectives of procurement for municipal needs and the specified open tender in particular, namely, the specified criterion does not allow to identify the person offering Better conditions performance of the contract, and which will best meet the objectives effective use sources of funding and prevention of procurement abuses.

It follows from the tender documentation (Section 2 "Information Card of the Open Tender", paragraph 19) that the criteria for evaluating the tender application are the price of the contract and the qualifications of the procurement participants; the value of the significance of the criteria - the quality of services and the qualifications of the participant in the competition.

The procedure for consideration and evaluation of applications for participation in the tender is specified in clause 18 of section 1 of the tender documentation and in clause 19 of section 2 "Information card of the open tender".

Subparagraph 2 of paragraph 19 of the Information card provides that in order to evaluate applications for participation in the competition according to the specified criterion, each such application is assigned a value from 0 to 100 points.

a) The experience of the participant in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume.

Availability of a state (municipal) contract (agreement) for the construction (reconstruction, overhaul) of public roads completed by a participant in an open tender for the last 3 years preceding the deadline for filing applications for participation in the tender, the price of which: - more than 400.0 million . rub. - 100 points; - from 200.0 million rubles up to 400.0 million rubles – 50 points; - less than 200.0 million rubles – 25 points; - lack of experience - 0 points.

When evaluating bids for this indicator, a copy of one submitted participant in an open tender, executed by a participant in an open tender for the last 3 years preceding the deadline for filing applications for participation in the tender, of the state (municipal) agreement (contract) for construction (reconstruction, overhaul) is evaluated ) public roads with copies of documents confirming the performance of work under such an agreement (contract), namely, copies of the act of acceptance of the capital construction object and permission to put the capital construction object into operation (except if the developer is a person carrying out construction , or in cases where a permit to put a capital construction object into operation is not issued in accordance with the urban planning legislation of the Russian Federation) or a copy of the acceptance certificate for the work performed. At the same time, a permit to commission a capital construction object must be issued, and an acceptance certificate for the capital construction object, acceptance certificates for the work performed must be signed no earlier than three years before the deadline for filing applications for participation in an open tender. Full copies of documents confirming qualifications, and not their individual sheets, must be attached.

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the customer complied with the requirements of paragraph 9 of part 1 of Article 50 of the Law on the contract system, since the applicant, in order to evaluate the application according to the criterion "qualification of procurement participants" in accordance with the requirements of the Law on the contract system and Rules No. 1085 in the tender documentation establishes a criterion: the participant's experience in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume, according to which the total cost of work performed under contracts (agreements) for performance is estimated construction works(construction, reconstruction, overhaul) of public roads for the last three years preceding the deadline for submitting applications for participation in the tender; the value of the significance of the specified criterion (from 0 to 40%).

The customer takes into account the work experience in the implementation of only one contract, but at the same time he gives the right to choose to the bidder to submit a contract for the implementation of a state or municipal order, with a larger or smaller amount of work performed and its cost, etc.

In view of the foregoing, the argument of the antimonopoly authority that the establishment in the tender documentation of such an indicator (criterion) as “qualification of the tender participant” (participant’s experience in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume) violates the rights and legitimate interests of participants purchases, limit the number of participants or restrict access to participation in the tender, the court considers insolvent and inconsistent with the requirements of part 2 of article 8, clause 4 of part 1 of article 50 of the Law on the contract system.

At the same time, the court agrees with the conclusion of the antimonopoly authority insofar as it asserts that the evaluation criterion specified by the customer in paragraph 19 of the Information Card is incomparable with respect to the existence of a state (municipal) contract (agreement) for the construction of roads executed by a participant in an open tender, the price of which exceeds 400 million rubles, while the initial (maximum) price of the contract is set at 379,462,030 rubles.

Thus, the indicator of the evaluation criterion of 400 million rubles or more significantly exceeds the initial (maximum) price of the contract, and, therefore, cannot be comparable in terms of volume.

In such circumstances, the defendant's allegation that the customer violated the provisions of paragraph 27 of the Rules, and, accordingly, part 2 of article 8 and paragraph 4 of part 1 of article 50 of the Law on the contract system, is reasonable.

Paragraph 2 of Article 24 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ refers to competitive methods for determining suppliers (contractors, performers), including an auction in electronic form.

An open tender is understood as a tender in which information about the procurement is communicated by the customer to an unlimited circle of persons by posting in a single information system a notice of such a tender, tender documentation, and uniform requirements are imposed on procurement participants (Part 1 of Article 48 of Federal Law No. 44 - FZ).

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 49 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ, in the notice of an open tender, along with the information specified in Article 42 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ, the benefits provided by the customer in accordance with Articles 28-30 of the said law are indicated.

Part 1 of Article 30 of Law No. 44 - FZ establishes that customers are required to purchase from small businesses that are socially oriented non-profit organizations in the amount of not less than fifteen percent of the total annual volume of purchases, calculated taking into account part 1. 1 of this article.

According to the provisions of Part 5 of Article 30 of Federal Law No. 44 - FZ, when determining a supplier (contractor, performer), the customer has the right to establish in the notice of procurement a requirement for a supplier (contractor, performer) who is not a small business entity or a socially oriented non-profit organization to attract to the execution of the contract of subcontractors, co-executors from among small businesses, socially oriented non-profit organizations.

By virtue of Part 6 of Article 30 of Federal Law No. 44-FZ, the condition on the involvement of subcontractors, co-executors from among small businesses, socially oriented non-profit organizations in the execution of contracts in the case provided for by Part 5 of this Article is included in contracts indicating the volume of such involvement established as a percentage of the contract price.

The court established and the case materials confirm that in paragraph 5. 1. 5 of the draft contract for the construction of the highway, which is an integral part of the tender documentation, it is established next condition: if the contractor himself is not a small business entity or a socially oriented non-profit organization, he is obliged to involve subcontractors, co-executors from among small business entities, socially oriented non-profit organizations in the amount of at least 15% of the contract price.

The said provision, containing the phrase “at least”, does not allow establishing the specific scope of involving subcontractors, co-executors from among small businesses, socially oriented non-profit organizations in the execution of contracts.

The norm of the above Law does not provide for the customer's right to establish a range ("fork") value of the volume (at least 15% of the price - that means from 15% and more) of the participation of subcontractors and co-executors.

Thus, the actions of the customer, who did not establish in the draft contract of the tender documentation the scope of involving subcontractors, co-executors from among small businesses, socially oriented non-profit organizations in the form of a specific percentage of the contract price, violate the provisions of Part 6 of Article 30 of the Law on the contract system.

Based on the foregoing, the court concluded that the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia for the Sakhalin Region dated April 24, 2015 in case No. 192/15 complies with the Law on the contract system and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the applicants.

Considering that the order contested by the applicants was issued on the basis of the decision of the antimonopoly authority dated April 24, 2015 in case No. 192/15, which the court recognizes as lawful and justified, the court also recognizes the order issued on the basis of this decision as lawful and justified.

The contested decision was made by the Board within its powers.

There are no evidences refuting the conclusions of the court in the case, the applicants have not presented.

All other arguments of the parties, according to the court, have no legal value.

In accordance with part 3 of Article Section III. Proceedings in the Arbitration Court of First Instance in Cases Arising from Administrative and Other Public Legal Relations > Article 201. The decision of the arbitration court in the case of contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials if the arbitration court establishes that the disputed non-normative legal act, the decision and actions (inaction) of the bodies exercising public powers, officials comply with the law or other regulatory legal act and do not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, the court makes a decision to refuse to satisfy the stated requirement.

Guided by articles -, Section III. Proceedings in the Arbitration Court of First Instance in Cases Arising from Administrative and Other Public Legal Relations > Article 201. The decision of the arbitration court in the case of contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising public powers, officials" target = "_blank"> 201 APC RF, with d

I decided:

To the limited liability company "Pereval" and the municipal budgetary institution of the municipal formation "Kholmsky urban district" "Capital construction department" in satisfying the requirements for the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Sakhalin Region to recognize as illegal and cancel the decision and order dated April 24, 2015 in the case No. 192/15 to refuse.

The decision can be appealed to the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal through the Sakhalin Oblast Arbitration Court within one month from the date of its adoption.

Chairman JAVASHVILI V.N.

Court:

AS of the Sakhalin Region

Plaintiffs:

MBU "OKS" MO Kholmsky GO
MBUMO "Kholmsky urban district" "Department of capital construction"
Municipal budgetary institution of the municipal formation "Kholmsky urban district" "Department of capital construction"
LLC "Pereval"

Respondents:

Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Sakhalin Region
Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Sakhalin Region

By virtue of h. 2 Article. 32 of the Law on the contract system in the procurement documentation, the customer is obliged to indicate the criteria used in determining the supplier (contractor, performer) and their significance. At the same time, the number of criteria used in determining the supplier (contractor, performer), with the exception of cases where an auction is held, must be at least two, one of which is the contract price. The procedure for evaluating applications, final offers of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs in order to identify the best of the proposed conditions for the execution of a contract during the procurement, as well as the limiting values ​​​​of the significance of each criterion for evaluating applications, final offers of procurement participants is established by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2013 No. 1085 “On Approval of the Rules for Evaluating Applications, Final Offers of Participants in the Procurement of Goods, Works, Services for State and Municipal Needs” (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for Evaluating Applications).

Criteria for evaluation

In accordance with Part 1 Art. 32 of the Law on the contract system to evaluate bids, final proposals of procurement participants, the customer establishes the following criteria in the procurement documentation:

Contract price;

Expenses for the operation and repair of goods, the use of the results of work;

The qualifications of the procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, on the right of ownership or other legal basis of equipment and other material resources, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level.

By virtue of Clause 4 of the Application Evaluation Rules to evaluate bids (offers), the customer establishes the following evaluation criteria in the procurement documentation:

1) characterized as cost evaluation criteria:

Contract price;

Expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work;

Price life cycle goods (object) created as a result of the performance of work in cases provided for item 5 these rules (hereinafter - the cost of the life cycle);

Proposal for the amount of relevant customer costs that the customer will incur or incur under the energy performance contract;

2) characterized as non-monetary assessment criteria:

high quality, functional and environmental characteristics purchase object;

Qualifications of procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources belonging to them on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain level of qualification.

Recall that previously the evaluation of applications was carried out using the following criteria ( clause 2 of Regulation No. 722):

a) the price of the contract;

The price of the contract for a unit of goods, work, services, which includes:

Unit price of goods, services in case of placing a purchase order technical means rehabilitation of the disabled, the provision of services in the field of education, services for sanatorium treatment and rehabilitation for the needs of customers - if the tender documentation provides for the right of the customer to conclude a contract with several participants in the placement of the order;

The price of spare parts for machinery, equipment and the price of a unit of work, services - if, during a tender for the right to conclude a contract for the performance of maintenance and (or) repair of machinery, equipment, the tender documentation provides for the initial (maximum) price of spare parts for machinery, equipment;

The price of a service unit - if, during a tender for the right to conclude a contract for the provision of communication services, legal services the tender documentation provides for the initial (maximum) price of a service unit;

b) functional characteristics (consumer properties) or quality characteristics of the goods;

c) the quality of work, services and (or) the qualifications of the bidder when placing an order for the performance of work, the provision of services;

d) the cost of operating the goods;

e) expenses for Maintenance goods;

f) terms (periods) of delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services;

g) the term for providing a guarantee of the quality of goods, works, services;

h) the volume of guarantees for the quality of goods, works, services.

note

The rules for evaluating bids apply to all purchases, with the exception of purchases made through an auction, request for quotations, sole supplier(contractor, performer), as well as by conducting a request for proposals, if the customer has established other criteria for evaluating applications that are not provided for by the Law on the contract system ( Clause 2 of the Application Evaluation Rules).

By virtue of Part 2 Art. 32 of the Law on the contract system when conducting a request for proposals, the customer has the right not to apply the above criteria, but to establish at its own discretion other criteria for evaluating applications, final proposals, and their significance.

In addition, in the cases provided for by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2013 No. 1087 “On determining the cases of concluding a life cycle contract”, in order to evaluate the applications of procurement participants, the customer in the procurement documentation has the right to establish as a criterion the cost of the life cycle of a product or product created as a result of object work. The criterion of the cost of the life cycle of a product or an object created as a result of the performance of work includes the costs of purchasing the product or performing the work, subsequent maintenance, operation during its service life, repair, disposal of the delivered product or the object created as a result of the work. The calculation of the cost of the life cycle of a product or an object created as a result of the work is carried out taking into account guidelines provided for Part 20 of Art. 22Law on the contract system.

As we noted above, in the procurement documentation, the customer is obliged to indicate the evaluation criteria used to determine the supplier (contractor, performer) and the significance of the evaluation criteria. At the same time, the number of evaluation criteria used to determine the supplier (contractor, performer) in the course of procurement must be at least two, one of which must be the evaluation criterion "contract price", and in cases provided for Part 3 Art. 32 of the Law on the contract system, - "life cycle cost".

In addition, it should be taken into account that the use of the evaluation criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work" is possible only if the contract, in addition to the supply of goods (performance of work), provides for further operation, repair of goods (the use of goods created in as a result of the performance of the work of the facility), including the supply Supplies. At the same time, the evaluation in terms of goods is carried out according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), and in terms of work - according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the use of the object created as a result of the work”.

The sum of the significance values ​​of the evaluation criteria used by the customer must be 100%. The value of the significance of the evaluation criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work" should not exceed the value of the significance of the evaluation criterion "contract price".

In accordance with Clause 11 of the Application Evaluation Rules to evaluate applications (proposals) for each evaluation criterion, a 100-point evaluation scale is used. If the procurement documentation in relation to non-monetary evaluation criteria can provide indicators that reveal the content of non-monetary evaluation criteria and take into account the peculiarities of the evaluation of purchased goods, works, services according to non-monetary evaluation criteria, then for each indicator its significance is established, in accordance with which the evaluation will be carried out , and a formula for calculating the number of points awarded for such indicators, or a scale of limiting values ​​for the significance of evaluation indicators, which establishes the intervals for their changes, or the procedure for determining them.

The sum of the significance values ​​of the indicators of the evaluation criterion should be 100%.

The significance of the evaluation criteria should be established depending on the purchased goods, works, services in accordance with the limiting values ​​of the significance of the evaluation criteria in accordance with the appendix.

In the case of a procurement, the results of which are a contract that provides for the performance of construction works, the customer, as an indicator of the non-monetary evaluation criterion "the qualifications of the procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources that belong to them on the basis of ownership or other legal grounds, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level” is obliged to establish the experience of the participant in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume. At the same time, the significance this indicator should be at least 50% of the significance of all non-monetary assessment criteria. An exception to this requirement are cases where additional requirements are imposed on procurement participants in accordance with.

In accordance with Clause 14 of the Application Evaluation Rules the final rating of the application (proposal) is calculated as the sum of the ratings for each criterion for assessing the application (proposal). The winner is the procurement participant whose bid (offer) is assigned the highest final rating. The bid (offer) of such a procurement participant is assigned the first serial number.

Evaluation of bids (proposals) according to cost evaluation criteria

As we have already noted, the cost criteria can be: “contract price”, “life cycle cost”, as well as “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of the results of work”.

According to Clause 16 of the Application Evaluation Rules the number of points awarded according to the evaluation criteria "contract price" and "life cycle cost" ( CB i ), is determined by the formula:

a) if C min > 0 ,

CB i = C min / C i x 100 , where:

C i - proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated;

C min

b) if C min < 0 ,

CB i = (C max - C i ) / C i x 100 , where:

C max - the maximum offer from the offers by the criterion made by the procurement participants.

Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to the evaluation criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of the results of work" can be carried out when purchasing goods or works to create objects that, meeting the main functional and quality requirements of the customer, may differ in the cost of operation and repair (use of the results of work).

Based on the characteristics of the purchased goods, created as a result of the execution of works of objects, the customer has the right to establish in the procurement documentation and take into account one or more types of operating costs or a set of estimated costs in the assessment.

The types of estimated operating costs taken into account in the assessment are established by the customer in the procurement documentation based on the characteristics of the purchased product (object) and the expected conditions for its operation and repair (use of the results of work).

The number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work" ( CEB i ), is determined by the formula:

CEB i = CE min / CE i x 100 ,where:

CE min - the minimum offer from the offers on the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

CE i - proposal of the procurement participant on the amount of expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work within due date service life or service life of the goods (object), the application (offer) of which is being evaluated.

If all bids contain the same proposals according to the criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work", the bids (proposals) are not evaluated according to the specified criterion. At the same time, the value of the significance of the criterion "price of the contract" increases by the value of the significance of the criterion "expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of the results of work."

note

The sum of the significance values ​​of cost criteria in determining suppliers (contractors, performers) for the purpose of concluding contracts for performance (as a result of intellectual activity), as well as for the performance of research, development or technological work must be at least 20% of the sum of significance values all criteria. If, when concluding such contracts, the criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods, use of the results of work” is not used, the value of the significance of the criterion “contract price” must be at least 20% of the sum of the significance values ​​of all criteria. The value of the significance of the criterion "price of the contract" in determining the performers in order to conclude a contract for the creation of a work of literature or art can be reduced to 0% of the sum of the values ​​of the significance of all criteria ().

It should be noted that the provisions Part 6 Art. 32 of the Law on the contract system relating to works of literature and art apply to:

literary works;

Dramatic and musical-dramatic works, scenario works;

Choreographic works and pantomime;

Musical works with or without text;

audiovisual works;

Works of painting, sculpture, graphics, design, graphic stories, comics and other works of fine art;

Works of arts and crafts and scenographic art;

Works of architecture, urban planning and gardening art (external and internal appearance of the object, its spatial, planning and functional organization, fixed in the form of schemes or models or described in any other way, except for project documentation);

Photographic works and works obtained by means similar to photography;

derivative works;

Composite works (except databases), which are the result of creative work in terms of the selection or arrangement of materials.

Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to non-monetary evaluation criteria

By virtue of Clause 10 of the Application Evaluation Rules in the procurement documentation regarding non-monetary evaluation criteria, indicators may be provided that reveal the content of non-monetary evaluation criteria and take into account the peculiarities of the evaluation of purchased goods, works, services according to non-monetary evaluation criteria.

To evaluate applications (proposals) according to non-monetary evaluation criteria (indicators), the customer has the right to set the maximum necessary minimum or maximum quantitative value of qualitative, functional, environmental and qualification characteristics, which are subject to evaluation within the specified criteria. In this case, when evaluating bids (offers) according to such criteria (indicators), the procurement participants who made an offer corresponding to such a value, or Best offer is assigned 100 points.

In accordance with Clause 20 of the Application Evaluation Rules evaluation according to non-monetary criteria (indicators), with the exception of cases of evaluation according to the indicators "quality of goods (quality of work, quality of services)" and "compliance with environmental standards", as well as in cases where the customer has established an evaluation scale, is carried out in the manner prescribed paragraphs 21 - 24 of the Rules for Evaluation of Applications.

According to Clause 25 of the Application Evaluation Rules indicators of the non-monetary evaluation criterion "qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the object of procurement" may include:

Quality of goods (quality of work, quality of services);

Functional, consumer properties of the goods;

Compliance with environmental regulations.

The number of points assigned to the application (offer) according to these indicators is determined as the arithmetic average of the scores (in points) of all members of the procurement committee awarded to the application (offer) for each of the indicated indicators.

Indicators of the non-monetary evaluation criterion "qualification of procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources that they own on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other workers of a certain skill level” can be ( Clause 27 of the Application Evaluation Rules):

Qualification of labor resources (managers and key specialists) offered to perform work, provide services;

Participant's experience in successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume;

Provision of the procurement participant with material and technical resources in terms of the availability of the procurement participant's own or leased production facilities, technological equipment necessary for the performance of work, the provision of services;

Security of the procurement participant with labor resources;

Business reputation of the procurement participant.

Evaluation of bids (offers) according to the specified non-monetary evaluation criterion is carried out if it is established in the procurement documentation in accordance with Clause 10 of the Application Evaluation Rules indicators that reveal the content of the relevant evaluation criterion, indicating (if necessary) the minimum or maximum value of the minimum or maximum value of the quality, functional, environmental and qualification characteristics required by the customer.

By virtue of Clause 29 of the Application Evaluation Rules in order to use the evaluation scale for the purposes of evaluation of bids (proposals), the customer in the procurement documentation must establish the number of points awarded for a certain value of the evaluation criterion (indicator) proposed by the procurement participant. If several indicators are used, the value determined in accordance with the rating scale should be adjusted taking into account the significance factor of the indicator.

In accordance with Part 2 Art. 31 of the Law on the contract system The Government of the Russian Federation has the right to establish additional requirements for participants in the procurement of certain types of goods, works, services, the procurement of which is carried out through tenders with limited participation, two-stage tenders, closed tenders with limited participation, closed two-stage tenders or auctions, including the presence of:

Financial resources for the execution of the contract;

On the right of ownership or other legal basis of equipment and other material resources for the performance of the contract;

Work experience related to the subject of the contract and business reputation;

The required number of specialists and other employees of a certain skill level for the performance of the contract.

So, for example, additional requirements for participants in the procurement of certain goods, works, services, which, due to their technical and (or) technological complexity, innovative, high-tech or specialized nature, are able to supply, perform, provide only suppliers (contractors, performers), having the required level of qualification are established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2013 No. 1089 “On the conditions for conducting a tender procedure with limited participation in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” .

In these cases, such additional requirements cannot be used as criteria for evaluating bids (proposals).

Federal Law No. 44-FZ dated 05.04.2013 “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs”.

Rules for evaluating applications for participation in a tender for the right to conclude a state or municipal contract (civil law contract of a budgetary institution) for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for the needs of customers, approved. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 10, 2009 No. 722.

The procedure for evaluating competitive bids is determined by Article 32 of the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ. In order to evaluate the proposals of the participants, the customer has the right to establish a number of criteria in the procurement documentation: the price of the contract, the cost of operating and repairing goods, the use of the results of work, and others.

From this article you will learn:

• how to evaluate competitive bids according to established criteria;
• What are the rules to be followed in the assessment?
• examples of rating calculation for each application;
• what to foresee when purchasing construction work.

Respect significance limits

Example 1. The customer holds an open tender.

For example, the subject of the contract is the provision of a range of services for the radiation survey of facilities. To evaluate applications, the customer can set the following criteria significance values:

1. contract price - 60 percent;
2. qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object - 30 percent;
3. qualification of procurement participants - 10 percent. If the customer buys medical services for citizens, he will be able to establish other values ​​​​of the significance of the criteria:
   1. contract price - 40 percent;
   2. qualification of procurement participants - 60 percent.

Expand the content of the criteria with the help of indicators

important document

How to act for the customer in order to identify the best conditions for the execution of the contract during the tender, officials explained in a joint letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated December 11, 2014 No. 31047-EE/D28i, No. AC/50997/14

Rules No. 1085 define separate principles for evaluating applications according to non-monetary criteria. In order to take into account the peculiarities of the purchased goods, works, services, in relation to these criteria, indicators can be provided that reveal their content. The list of these indicators is given in paragraphs 25 and 27 of Regulation No. 1085. For each indicator, the significance is established, in accordance with which it will be evaluated. The sum of the significance values ​​of the indicators should also be 100 percent.

In order to identify a supplier, contractor or contractor, it is first necessary to plan electronic procedures. Get electronic signature. Choose the site that best suits your organization and register. Next, create documentation and a notice, carry out procedures and determine the supplier and conclude a contract, taking into account the characteristics of each of the procurement methods.
See solutions for each electronic method: auction, tender, request for quotation, request for proposals.

Example 2. The customer purchases services for radiation inspection of facilities through an open tender.

In the procurement documentation, he will establish the following non-monetary criteria for evaluating bids:

a) qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object, including indicators of:

• quality of services (significance coefficient - 0.6 (60%));
• compliance with environmental standards (significance factor - 0.4 (40%));

b) qualification of procurement participants, including indicators:

• qualification of labor resources (managers and key specialists) proposed for the performance of work, provision of services (significance coefficient - 0.6 (60%));
• participant's experience in successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume (significance factor - 0.2 (20%));
• business reputation (significance coefficient - 0.2 (20%)).

Thus, the customer has complied with the requirements prescribed by Regulation No. 1085. Namely:

1. the sum of the values ​​of the significance of the indicators of the criterion "a" is 100 percent (60 + 40);
2. the sum of the values ​​of the significance of the indicators of criterion "b" is 100 percent (60 + 20 + 20).