How to evaluate bids against established criteria. Is the customer’s requirement in the cd justified Volumes of successful completion of similar work

Adoption federal law dated April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ "" (hereinafter - Law No. 44-FZ), which entered into force on January 1, 2014, entailed the need to develop many by-laws for each stage of public procurement.

Scheme. Criteria for evaluating the bids of procurement participants (as approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2013 No. 1085)

Cost Criteria

As before, when determining the winner of the purchase, at least two criteria, one of which is price ().

True, now a mandatory criterion for evaluation may turn out to be "price life cycle" - in the event that it is supposed to conclude a so-called "life cycle contract", which provides for the purchase of goods (or the performance of work), its subsequent maintenance, repair, and, if necessary, the disposal of the goods or object of work (). Moreover, at the discretion of the customer, the criterion "life cycle cost" can replace all cost criteria ().

It should be noted that the change weight of cost evaluation criteria. If earlier the significance of the criterion "contract price" had to be at least 35%, now the approach to determining the limit values ​​of the significance of the evaluation criteria has changed - in general view it can be presented in the form of the following table:

Table. Limit values ​​for the significance of evaluation criteria

True, there are exceptions to these rules. Thus, the ratio of the minimum significance of cost criteria and the maximum significance of non-value criteria "40/60" established for such types of goods, works and services as:

• development of documents regulating training, education, quality control of education;
• rescue operations;
• restoration of cultural heritage sites;
• medical, educational, legal services;
• services of a specialized organization.

Ratio "30/70" established for expert examination services, as well as works on the creation, development and technical support state and municipal information systems and official websites of authorities.

An even greater limiting weight of non-monetary criteria (ratio "20/80" ) is provided for evaluating applications for financing the distribution or screening of national films, performing R&D or technological works, as well as performance (as a result of intellectual activity - for example, a performer in accordance with can be a performing artist, director or conductor).

Finally, only by non-monetary criteria (the relation "0/100" ) applications for the creation of works of literature and art, including choreographic works and pantomimes, works of architecture, urban planning and gardening art and photographic works can be evaluated (the full list of objects is fixed in).

In any case, as before, the sum of the values ​​of the significance of the evaluation criteria should be 100%. In this case, the weight of the criterion "expenses for operation and repair" (which can be set only if further maintenance of the goods or object of work is expected) cannot be greater than the weight of the criterion "contract price" ( , ).

In 2010, there was a case when the FAS Russia considered the negative value of the final cost of the state contract to be acceptable, but the court did not agree with this interpretation. However, the court recognized the possibility of reducing the contract price below zero for a contract for the provision of services for opening and maintaining bank accounts (FAS of the Urals District dated July 6, 2010 No. F09-5137 / 10-C1 in case No. A60-49614 / 2009- SR). However, the special clause of Part 6.1 of Art. 37 of the Federal Law of July 21, 2005 No. 94-FZ "" on the features of the price of a contract for the provision of this type of service was not transferred to Law No. 44-FZ.

By the way, during the period of the old law on public procurement, there were situations when, during the procurement, participants reduced the price of the contract to zero, which gave rise to controversy judicial practice. The conclusion of a contract on a gratuitous basis was recognized by the courts as lawful (FAS of the Ural District dated October 19, 2010 No. F09-8056 / 10-C5 in case A50-331 / 2010, of the Nineteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated November 29, 2011 No. 19AP-4855 / 11), and those that do not comply with the law (FAS of the Volga District of March 18, 2010 in case No. A72-10398 / 2009, FAS of the Ural District of October 19, 2010 No. F09-8056 / 10-C5 in case No. A50-331 /2010).

Non-monetary criteria

These criteria can be applied to object of procurement(quality, functional, ecological), and directly to procurement participant(qualification of the participant). In the latter case, the qualifications of the participants should be assessed depending on whether:

• 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;
• business reputation;
• specialists and other workers of a certain skill level.

By the way, customers retained the right to install indicators each individual non-monetary criterion, revealing its content, and determine their weight on one's own. To do this, the procurement documentation must provide for one of the following calculation methods:

• formula for calculating the number of points awarded to indicators;
• a scale of limit values ​​for the significance of assessment indicators, which sets the intervals for their changes;
• the procedure for defining such a formula or scale.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the customer has the right to set the maximum necessary minimum or maximum quantitative value of non-cost characteristics, which are subject to evaluation within the framework of the criteria or their individual indicators (paragraph 2) - for example, 10 years, 50 employees, etc. Let's consider this in more detail with examples.

EXAMPLE 1

The customer has decided to assess the qualifications of the procurement participants, and therefore, for this, must establish indicators that reveal this criterion (). Let's say that the experience of the procurement participant and the availability of his labor resources are of the greatest importance for the customer (using the terminology of the Rules - "the best condition for the execution of the contract in terms of the indicator is the highest value of the indicator"). Then the weight distribution of the indicators of the qualification criterion can look like this:

• work experience of the procurement participant in the production of the procurement object (significance - 60%);
• the number of employees employed in the production of the facility (significance - 40%).

Let's imagine that the customer did not set limits for these indicators in numbers, and the most experienced was recognized as a public procurement participant working in a certain area four years. Then the number of points scored for this indicator by other participants whose work experience is less than four years must be assessed using the following formula ():

NCB i= short circuit x 100 x (K i/k max)

• NCB i- number of points;
• KZ - the significance of the indicator;
• K i
• K max – maximum offer of all made by the procurement participants.

In relation to our example, the calculation of the number of points of a participant working in a certain area, let's say, three years, will look like this:

NCB i= 0.6 x 100 x (3 / 4) = 45 points

Thus, for the most experienced procurement participant, the number of points for this indicator will be 60 points(coefficient of 0.6 reflects the significance of the indicator - 60%, but if only one indicator is used, then the KZ will be equal to 1, and the maximum number of points will be 100).

EXAMPLE 2

Let's imagine that the customer considers the period at least five years And wishes to reflect this in the requirements for procurement participants. In this case, in the procurement documentation, he should set the maximum required maximum value of the "work experience" indicator (five years).

The choice of the formula by which the points will be calculated depends on whether any of the participants has work experience equal to or greater than the period of five years.

Situation 1. None of the participants have such experience. In this case, the points assigned to the applications of absolutely all participants will be calculated according to the formula that was considered in example 1: NCB i= short circuit x 100 x (K i/k max) - based on the best offer for this indicator (clause "a") (if best deal was four years, then a participant with three years of work experience, taking into account the weight of the indicator, will score 45 points).

Situation 2. Some procurement participants have the required or great experience work. They are assigned the maximum number of points (if one indicator is used - 100 points, since KZ \u003d 1), and the applications of other participants are evaluated according to the following formula (clause "b"):

NCB i= short circuit x 100 x (K i/k P ed)

• NCB i- number of points;
• KZ - the significance of the indicator;
• K i– proposal of the procurement participant whose bid is being evaluated;
• K before- the maximum value of characteristics required by the customer.

Returning to our example, let's calculate the number of points for a procurement participant working in a certain area three years:

NCB i = 0.6 x 100 x (3/5) = 36 points

EXAMPLE 3

The rules also give the customer the right to develop for the evaluation of applications the scale of limiting values ​​of the significance of the assessment indicators. Such a scale involves the accrual of points depending on which interval of requirements the procurement participant falls into (). For example, a rating scale for the “work experience” indicator might look like this:

• 0-1 year– 50 points;
• 2-3 years– 70 points;
• 4-5 years or more- 100 points.

Do not forget about the need to take into account the significance of the indicator "work experience" as part of the evaluation criterion "qualification of the procurement participant". Taking into account the adjustment for the weight of the indicator (in our example - 60%), we get the scale in its final form:

• 0-1 year- 30 points (50 x 0.6);
• 2-3 years- 42 points (70 x 0.6);
• 4-5 years or more- 60 points (100 x 0.6).
  

Rules in only one case oblige the customer, regardless of his discretion, apply a non-monetary criterion - it is the experience of the participant in the successful delivery of goods (performance of work, provision of services) of a comparable nature and volume, which should be taken into account when conducting a procurement for performance construction works ().

Additional Criteria

The legislator reserved the right to establish higher requirements for procurement participants of special technical or technological complexity, as well as those of an innovative, high-tech or specialized nature (). This must be taken into account by customers when organizing certain types of procurement, since such requirements must be reflected in the documentation about the purchase ().

Currently additional terms established for the procedure for holding a tender with limited participation for:

• provision of services Catering and/or supply of products to institutions education, medicine, social service and organization of children's recreation and their health improvement;
• performance of work in the field nuclear energy And nuclear weapons;
• performance of works on construction (reconstruction, overhaul) of especially dangerous, technically complex objects capital construction , as well as roads– if the initial (maximum) price of the contract exceeds 150 million rubles. (for purchases of the federal or regional level) or 50 million rubles. (during procurement for municipal needs).

Additional requirements for participants in such purchases are as follows:

• Availability experience execution of similar contracts within three years prior to the date of filing an application for participation in the tender (in this case, the cost of a previously executed contract should be at least 20% initial (maximum) contract price);
• availability of own and (or) leased for the term of the contract equipment and others material resources, as well as rights to the results of intellectual activity(in the amount established by the tender documentation).

The Government of the Russian Federation also fixed a closed list of documents that must be provided to the customer to confirm compliance with the requirements (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2013 No. 1089 "").

ARBITRATION COURT OF THE SAKHALIN REGION

Name Russian Federation

SOLUTION

693240, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Communist Avenue, 28,

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

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (cases A59 - 3392/2015

November 26, 2015

Court of Arbitration composed 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 municipality"Kholmsky City District" "Department of 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 the limited liability company " Spetsstroy-Sakhalin” on declaring illegal and canceling the decision and order dated April 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 urban district" "Department of capital construction" (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 contract system, paragraph 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 documentation open competition such a criterion for evaluating bids 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 under contracts (agreements) with similar works, complies with the provisions of part 1 of the article 32 of the Federal Law of 05. 04. 13 No. 44 - FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" (hereinafter - Federal Law No. 44 - FZ, the Law on the contract system) and does not to limit the number of bidders. 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 body 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) with an indication of the minimum values ​​​​needed 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 application, 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 contested 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. Litigation > Chapter 19. Litigation > Article 156. Consideration of a case in case of failure to provide a response to the statement of claim, additional evidence, as well as in the absence of persons participating in the case non-appearing 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 on 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 state or other public powers, officials> Article 198 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 and violate their rights and legitimate interests in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, illegally impose any obligations on them, create other obstacles to the implementation of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.

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 challenging 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 the clarifications given in the joint resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and Supreme Court Russian Federation dated 01. 07. 1996 No. 6/8, the basis for a court decision on recognizing 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 violation by the contested decision the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant who applied to the court with the relevant requirement.

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 the submission of applications in accordance with the notice of an open tender is determined on 16. 04. 15 at 10 am.

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) 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. Customers are prohibited from specialized organizations, their officials, procurement commissions, members of such commissions, procurement participants of any actions that contradict the requirements of this Federal Law, including those that lead to restriction of competition, in particular, to unreasonable limitation of 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 presented 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 having him 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 offers of procurement participants, the customer in the procurement documentation establishes the following criteria: the price of the contract and the qualifications of the procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources, on the right 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.

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: the 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 by right 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” can be: a) qualification labor resources(leaders and key specialists) proposed for the performance of work, provision of 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 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; 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 of efficient use of funding sources and prevention of abuses in the field of procurement.

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 of 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 submitting 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 the criterion: the participant's experience in the successful delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services of a comparable nature and volume, by which the total cost of work performed under contracts (contracts) for the performance of construction works (construction, reconstruction, overhaul) of public roads is estimated for the last three years preceding the date of the deadline for submitting applications for participation in the competition; 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 body 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.

Under 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 paragraph 5. 1. 5 of the draft contract for the construction of a highway, which is an integral part of the tender documentation, establishes the following condition: if the contractor himself is not a small business entity or a socially oriented non-profit organization, he is obliged to attract to the execution of the contract of subcontractors, co-executors from among small businesses, 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

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:

Plaintiffs:

Respondents:

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 proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for evaluating applications).

Criteria for evaluation

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;

The cost of the life cycle of a product (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:

Qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement 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:

The price of a unit of goods, services in case of placing an order for the supply of technical means for the rehabilitation of disabled people, 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 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

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 during the established service life or the 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 diagrams or layouts 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

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 the best offer, are 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 commission 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 by right 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 to procurement participants certain types 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, additional requirements, 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 the competition for the right to conclude a state or municipal contract ( civil contract budget 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 bids according to the 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.

To identify a supplier, contractor or performer, you first need to plan electronic procedures. Receive 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 way: auction, competition, request for quotations, 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) offered to perform work, provide services (significance factor - 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).