Challenging orders for inclusion in the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement RK

Home / Publications / Challenging orders for inclusion in the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement RK

4 July 2024

Challenging orders for inclusion in the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement

The objectives of administrative procedures are: the full realization of public rights, freedoms and interests of individuals and legal entities can be submitted after observing this procedure (Part 3 of Article 9 of the CPC).

In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 91 of the CPC, a participant in an administrative procedure has the right to appeal an administrative act, an administrative action (inaction) not related to the adoption of an administrative act, in an administrative (pre-trial) order.

Unless otherwise provided by law, appeal to the court is allowed after a pre-trial appeal. According to paragraph 6 of Article 12 of the Law on GZ, if a potential supplier does not agree with the decision of the authorized body to recognize him as an unscrupulous participant in the GZ provided for in the second part of paragraph 5 of this article, then such a potential supplier has the right to apply to the conciliation commission in accordance with the procedure determined by the authorized body.

The Conciliation Commission considers the application of a potential supplier who has evaded the conclusion of a GZ agreement and decides whether to exclude or refuse to exclude such a potential supplier from the RNU.

If a decision is made to exclude a potential supplier from the RNU, the customer applies to the authorized body.

The authorized body makes a decision to exclude a potential supplier from the RNU, taking into account the decision of the conciliation commission.

To date, the powers of the conciliation commission include reviewing appeals from potential suppliers and clarifying the circumstances and respect for the reasons that served as the basis for issuing the order, which may further eliminate the need to file claims with the court.

By virtue of the requirements of part 5 of Article 91 of the CPC, unless otherwise provided by law, an appeal to the court is allowed after a pre-trial appeal.

By Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 176 dated February 17, 2022, the Model Regulation of the Conciliation Commission was approved.

The deadline for submission to the conciliation commission is set at 60 calendar days from the date of recognition as an unscrupulous participant in the GZ.

At the same time, there are cases when potential suppliers miss the deadline for applying to the conciliation commission and go to court, citing the loss of the possibility of a pre-trial settlement of the dispute.

Missing the deadline for applying to the conciliation commission gives a potential supplier reason to believe that it is possible to go to court without necessarily settling the dispute in a pre-trial manner. The creation of such a practice may lead to potential suppliers abusing their right to judicial protection, as well as an increase in lawsuits.

Part 2 of Article 92 of the CPC provides for the right of a participant in an administrative procedure to file a petition with the body reviewing the complaint to restore the missed deadline for filing a complaint. In this case, it is proposed to amend the legislation on GZ, providing for the right of conciliation commissions to restore the deadline for a potential supplier to make substantive decisions.

Thus, it is not the right, but the obligation of a potential supplier or supplier to apply to the conciliation commission that will strengthen the institution of pre-trial dispute resolution and eliminate costs, including timely disbursement of budgetary funds.

In accordance with subparagraph 2) According to paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Law, the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement is a list of potential suppliers identified by the winners who evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract.

Paragraph 5 of the same article stipulates that the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement provided for in subparagraph 2) The list of potential suppliers identified by the winners (potential suppliers who took second place) who evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract is formed on the basis of a decision of the authorized body recognizing potential suppliers as non-bona fide participants in public procurement.

According to part 3 of Article 43 of the Law, the draft public procurement contract must be certified by the winner of public procurement by means of a tender, auction, request for price proposals through an electronic digital signature within three working days from the date of receipt on the public procurement web portal of the notification with the attachment of the draft public procurement contract.

Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law stipulates that if the potential supplier, recognized as the winner, has not submitted a signed public procurement contract to the customer within the time limits established by this Law or, having concluded a public procurement contract, has not provided security for the execution of the public procurement contract and (or) the amount in accordance with article 26 of this Law. According to the Law (if any), such a potential supplier is recognized as having evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract.

According to paragraph 22 of the "Rules for the formation and maintenance of registers in the field of public procurement", approved by the Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2015 No. 694, if the potential supplier, recognized as the winner or runner-up, has not signed a public procurement contract via the la web port within the time limits established by Law, Such a potential supplier is determined by an authorized body, which is accepted through a web portal in accordance with Appendix No. 5 to these Rules., It is automatically included in the register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement.

Thus, a potential supplier may be recognized as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement.:

1) if the GZ contract is not signed within three working days from the date of receipt of the notification on the web portal of public procurement with the attachment of the draft contract;

2) if, having concluded the GZ agreement, the potential supplier has not provided security for the execution of the agreement. The order of the authorized body is an onerous administrative act.

The NPS clarifies that when considering administrative claims to appeal decisions of the authorized body on the registration of a potential supplier (supplier) in the RNU, in connection with the avoidance of concluding a public procurement contract, the courts should proceed from the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 43 of the Law, which establishes the obligation of the winner of the GZ to sign the contract.

If the contract is not signed, the potential supplier must prove that he took all necessary measures to sign it, but due to objective circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to sign it. It should be noted that according to Chapter 2 of the CPC, one of the principles of administrative procedures and administrative proceedings is the proportionality of an administrative act, administrative action (inaction).

In accordance with article 10 of the CPC, when exercising administrative discretion, the administrative body and the official ensure a fair balance of interests between the participant in the administrative procedure and the company.

At the same time, an administrative act or administrative action (inaction) must be proportionate, that is, appropriate, necessary and proportionate.

The provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 12 of the Law do not establish that the decision of the authorized body to recognize a potential supplier as having evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract is made automatically.

The arguments about the automatic formation of the contested orders do not comply with the principles of administrative justice, such as fairness and proportionality.

The authorized body is obliged, while maintaining objectivity and impartiality, to provide a potential supplier with equal opportunities and conditions for the exercise of his rights to a comprehensive and complete investigation of the circumstances of the administrative case (Part 1 of Article 8 of the CPC).

Courts should take into account the degree of the supplier's guilt as the basis of civil liability in accordance with Article 359 of the Civil Code and the negative consequences for the customer, based on the criteria of fairness and reasonableness in accordance with Part 5 of Article 6 of the CPC.

Negative consequences should be understood as causing such damage to a party to a contract that it has largely achieved what it was entitled to expect when concluding the contract.

It is necessary to find out whether the actions of the potential supplier have caused any negative consequences for the customer of the GZ.

Whether all possible measures have been taken by the winner of the competition to properly comply with the requirements of the legislation on the conclusion of the contract (whether all necessary permits and resources are available for the timely and proper execution of the contract, the full amount of contract enforcement has been paid).

Is it due to the inability to sign the contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the potential supplier (being on sick leave due to disability, departure of the head of the legal entity on a business trip, lack of electricity in the office, inability to connect from another access point)?

Whether the non-signing of the contract was not intentional; due to the fault of the responsible employee. Whether actual and legally significant actions were actually aimed at ensuring proper fulfillment of obligations under the concluded contract; whether actions aimed at evading the conclusion of the contract were committed.

Is the potential supplier a domestic manufacturer, a bona fide entrepreneur, provides jobs, as well as for socially vulnerable segments of the population (disabled workers), has extensive work experience, labor and material resources to fulfill the contract, is a bona fide participant in public procurement (executed contracts, whether there are existing contracts).

For example, the customer conducted the GZ by requesting price offers. The protocol on the results of the procurement recognized LLP "A" as the winner of the competition.

The Customer, using the web portal, sent the Partnership a contract on GZ for signing within three working days. The contract has not been signed by the supplier within the prescribed period. The authorized body has issued an order through the web portal by which the Partnership is included in the RNU as having evaded the conclusion of the contract.

The Partnership, challenging the order of the Treasury Committee, justified the claim by saying that the contract was not signed due to a technical malfunction of the personal computer of the responsible person, the public procurement manager.

The court of first instance satisfied the claim, the order was canceled. He justified the conclusions by the absence of intent to evade the Partnership from signing the contract.

By a decision of the appellate instance, the court's decision was overturned, with a new decision to dismiss the claim. According to the board's conclusion, there is insufficient evidence indicating the validity of the reasons that prevented the signing of the contract. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld by the decision of the cassation instance.

It was established that the device was under repair at the customer service and was issued after the deadline for signing the contract. In addition, it follows from the web portal approval log that the Partnership performed the last action on the day the customer sent the draft contract, made changes to the supplier's details and approved the contract.

Subsequently, no actions were performed on the web portal until the last deadline for signing the agreement. Another example. LLP "F" was recognized as the winner of the competition for the purchase of biometric fingerprint readers in the amount of 24 units in the amount of 477 552 tenge. The customer sent the contract on the GZ to the plaintiff for signing within three working days. However, the contract was not signed by the winner within the prescribed period. By order of the Treasury Committee, the Partnership was incorporated into the RNU. The court's decision satisfied the claim, the order was canceled.

The court's decision remained unchanged by the court of appeal. The judicial acts were upheld in cassation. According to the circumstances of the case: it is recorded in the approval log that the winner has approved the contract.

However, the contract was not signed by the potential supplier due to the fault of his responsible employee, who had a heavy burden on the supply of medical products during the pandemic (there is an explanatory note in the case).

The employee was brought to disciplinary responsibility (an order to impose a penalty) and subsequently dismissed.

However, the Partnership itself had no intention of evading the conclusion of the contract. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, the potential supplier had the specified product in stock in 100 pieces.

Similar goods were supplied to police units in other regions of the country.

According to the case file, it is seen that the Partnership is a bona fide business entity, a domestic manufacturer of medical products, and has Certificates of origin CT-KZ. In 2020, he concluded and timely executed 5 contracts in the amount of 8,775,000 tenge; in 2021, he concluded 14 existing contracts in the amount of 56,357,920 tenge.

These agreements are similar to the unsigned one, and it was not difficult for the Partnership to fulfill it. The partnership employs 13 people.

The LLP regularly pays taxes and other mandatory payments, and has no debts to the state budget.

It is necessary to take into account the degree of guilt not only of the potential supplier, but also of the customer himself.

According to the requirement of subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law, the customer is obliged to send the winner a draft contract within five working days from the date of determining the winner of the GZ by requesting price proposals.

The potential supplier of IP "K" was recognized as the winner, determined by the method of requesting price offers for the supply of soap in the amount of 24,427 tenge. By order of the authorized body, the sole proprietor was recognized as an unscrupulous participant in the GZ and entered into the RNU due to non-signing of the contract.

The deadline for signing the contract by the winner expired on July 19, 2021.

The Approval Log records that he approved the contract on June 28, 2021 at 16:51:17 hours.

The customer sent the contract to the winner 16 days later, on July 14, 2021.

The supplier had the necessary quantity of goods. The contract was not signed due to the fault of his employee, due to an error in calculating the time frame for signing the contract.

The court satisfied the claim, the order was canceled, since the customer sent the contract to the winner in violation of the deadlines stipulated by Law. The decision was overturned by a higher authority, and a new decision was made to dismiss the claim.

The cassation instance upheld the court's decision. According to paragraph 9 of Article 43 of the Law, the bidder is obliged to provide security for the execution of the public procurement contract, as well as the amount in accordance with article 26 of this Law (if any), within ten working days from the date of conclusion of the GZ agreement.

At the same time, the customer, within two working days from the date of expiry of the deadline for securing the execution of the GZ agreement, sends a notification to the supplier via the public procurement web portal about the intention to terminate this agreement.

If the supplier has not provided enforcement of the GZ agreement within three working days from the date of receipt of the notification via the web portal of public procurement, the customer sends a notice of termination of this agreement.

The potential supplier of IP "I" was recognized as the winner by the method of requesting price offers "For the purchase of a disinfectant (antiseptic for hands)". On September 23, 2021, the customer and the winner signed a contract on GZ for a total amount of 500,000 tenge.

However, within the time limits established by Law, the obligation to deposit sums to ensure the execution of the contract in the amount of 15,000 tenge has not been fulfilled.

In connection with this, the Treasury Committee issued an order recognizing the sole proprietor as an unfair participant in public procurement.

However, when issuing the order, the authorized body did not take into account (could not have taken into account) the subjective circumstances that existed during the period provided for depositing the amount of enforcement before the contract.

The amount was not paid due to the fact that the IP was injured on September 29, 2021 in the form of a closed fracture of the knee joint of the hip bone on the right, and was treated until October 27, 2021 (the outpatient's medical record and certificate were examined).

For this reason, she could not move and had no opportunity to visit the web portal until October 16, 2021. According to the information of the "Approval Journal", the potential supplier performed actions on the public procurement portal only on October 16, 2021.

The payment for the enforcement of the contract was made on October 18, 2021. The court concluded that the security amount had not been paid for reasons beyond the plaintiff's control, as the injury had prevented her movement.

The sole proprietor is a conscientious taxpayer, has not previously been a member of the RNU, is a domestic manufacturer of disinfectants, and pays taxes to the budget. Evidence of the occurrence of negative consequences for the customer due to non-payment of security under the contract has not been presented to the court.

The court's decision satisfied the claim, and the judicial act was upheld by the decision of the appellate instance. Judicial acts have not been appealed in cassation.

Under the terms of the contract, the amount of performance security may not be paid by the supplier in case of full and proper fulfillment of obligations under the contract by him before the deadline for payment of contract security.

On May 4, 2021, K LLP signed a GZ agreement with the customer for the supply of 158 tons of deicing reagent.

The contract amount is 22,509,312 tenge, including VAT. The LLP was recognized by the order of the authorized body as having evaded the conclusion of the contract, due to the failure to provide security for the execution of the contract of 675,279.36 tenge.

The deadline for making collateral expired on May 20, 2021. When issuing the order, the authorized body did not assess all the essential circumstances.

Having become the winner of the competition, the Partnership intended to supply the goods, for which it had all the necessary facilities - its own production of chemical reagents. The Partnership took measures to deliver the goods ahead of schedule before the deadline for making collateral under the contract.

According to the approval log, on May 11, 2021, the supplier notified the customer of the delivery of the goods. On May 28, 2021, the supplier initiated a similar letter to the customer about the early delivery of the goods.

From the act of acceptance and transfer dated June 9, 2021, it can be seen that the goods have been delivered and transferred to the customer for storage in full.

It was this volume of goods that was subsequently delivered to the customer on behalf of the second potential supplier, LLP "X".

In such circumstances, the local courts concluded that the Partnership had no intention of evading the conclusion of the contract by failing to ensure its execution.

By the decision of the court, which was left unchanged by higher authorities, the claim was satisfied, the order of the authorized body was canceled.

Paragraph 11 of the NPA clarifies, upon the appearance of an administrative claim for the cancellation of the order of the authorized body to include a potential supplier in the register of non-bona fide participants in public procurement on the grounds of evading the conclusion of a public procurement contract, the customer, in accordance with subparagraph 1) According to the second part of Article 129 of the CPC, he is obliged to provide evidence of sending them a draft contract and notification of the need to sign a draft public procurement contract.

The obligation to send the contract is considered to have been duly fulfilled by the customer or the single organizer if there is evidence that the potential supplier has received a notification on the need to sign a draft public procurement contract on the web portal (the contract approval log received from the web portal) or the reasons for his failure to fulfill the obligation to send a draft contract and (or) notification of the need to sign a draft public procurement contract within the time limit prescribed by law.

Failure by the customer to fulfill the obligation assigned to him to send to a potential supplier a draft GZ agreement and notification of the need to sign a draft public procurement agreement is the basis for satisfying an administrative claim to cancel the order of the authorized body to include the potential supplier in the RNU on the grounds of evading the conclusion of the contract.

Inconsistency in the description of the characteristics of the purchased goods (works, services) indicated in the information posted on the public procurement web portal, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Law, with the actual terms of the draft contract submitted by the customer for conclusion (according to part 4 of paragraph 11 of the Regulatory Decree, this circumstance exempts the potential supplier from concluding the contract and excludes the inclusion of a potential supplier in the RNU on the grounds of evading the conclusion of a public procurement contract).

Recognition of a potential supplier as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement (if he was not previously on the register, this indicates the conscientious exercise of civil rights, according to Article 8 of the Civil Code).

However, it is necessary to take into account the onset of negative consequences for the customer, such as the late disbursement of significant amounts allocated from the budget for public procurement, the importance of their timely completion in a certain time season planned by the customer; take into account that purchases are carried out to equip (provide) strategically important facilities.

According to article 26 of the Law, the dumping price is the price offered by a potential supplier, which is below the threshold value determined by the rules of public procurement. Thus, AR LLP was recognized as the winner by means of an open competition announced by the State Institution "Department of Housing and Communal Services and Housing Inspection of Karatal district" for the performance of works "Repair /landscaping - Installation of a sports ground in Ushtobe, Karatal district, Almaty region" in the amount of 5,071,167 tenge.

The winner was offered a dumping price of 2,888,000 tenge. On June 2, 2021, the customer and the winner signed a contract on GZ. AR LLP deposited the amount of contract enforcement in the amount of 86,640 tenge to the customer's bank account.

Due to non-fulfillment of this condition, the Partnership was included in the RNU by order of the Treasury Committee. The claim was satisfied by the local courts, and the disputed order was canceled. A new decision was made in cassation, and the claim was filed.

and excludes the inclusion of a potential supplier in the RNU on the grounds of evading the conclusion of a public procurement contract).

keep in mind that purchases are made to equip (secure) strategically important facilities.

According to article 26 of the Law, the dumping price is the price offered by a potential supplier, which is below the threshold value determined by the rules of public procurement.

Thus, AR LLP was recognized as the winner by means of an open competition announced by the State Institution "Department of Housing and Communal Services and Housing Inspection of Karatal district" for the performance of works "Repair /landscaping - Installation of a sports ground in Ushtobe, Karatal district, Almaty region" in the amount of 5,071,167 tenge.

The winner was offered a dumping price of 2,888,000 tenge.

On June 2, 2021, the customer and the winner signed a contract on GZ. AR LLP deposited the amount of contract enforcement in the amount of 86,640 tenge to the customer's bank account.

However, AR LLP was obliged to pay within ten working days from the date of conclusion of the contract the amount of dumping, in accordance with Article 26 of the Law, equal to 1,168,933.60 tenge by June 16, 2021. Due to non-fulfillment of this condition, the Partnership was included in the RNU by order of the Treasury Committee.

The claim was satisfied by the local courts, and the disputed order was canceled.

A new decision was made in cassation, and the claim was filed.

Jurisdiction of administrative cases in the field of public procurement

According to the second part of Article 102 of the CPC, the courts have jurisdiction in administrative proceedings over disputes arising from public law relations provided for by this Code.

Paragraph 2 of the NPS No. 4 clarifies that challenging the results of the GZ, decisions of the authorized body on the registration of a potential supplier in the RNU, as well as decisions, conclusions, instructions, notifications of the authorized body based on the results of the audit of the GZ, is carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for in part three of Article 106 of the APPC, at the place of residence (location) of the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff, along with the claim for recognition of the results of the tender as illegal, requires that the concluded GZ agreement be invalidated on this basis, then such claims will be subject to joint consideration by the SMAS, taking into account the requirements of part three of Article 84, part three of Article 155, part two of Article 156 of the CPC.

The authors of the analysis draw attention to the fact that the above provision of the NPS has been repeatedly pointed out at operational meetings and seminars held for judges of administrative jurisdiction. However, there are cases of refunds of claims regarding the recognition of GZ agreements, whereas they are filed jointly with claims for appealing the results of the GZ.

NPVS No. 4 also provides that in this case, regarding the claim for invalidation of the agreement, the plaintiff is not required to comply with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure provided for in the contract.

Claims of a potential supplier against actions (inaction), decisions of the customer, the organizer, the single organizer of the GZ, commissions, an expert, a single operator in the field of GZ, as well as actions (inaction), decisions of the authorized body and GAiFK bodies are subject to review by the SMAS.

Claims of the organizers of the GZ, customers related to the application of subitems 1) and 3) of the first part of paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Law on GZ, as well as claims arising from the execution of contracts on GZ, are subject to consideration by the Council of Economic Cooperation.

Claims challenging the decision of the authorized body to recognize a potential supplier as an unscrupulous participant in the GZ, recognized as such in accordance with subparagraph 2) The first part of paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the GZ Law is subject to review by the SMAS.

Refunds of administrative claims in the field of public procurement

The main reason for the returns due to lack of jurisdiction was that the contested administrative act was issued in electronic form and therefore should be considered at the location (residence) of the plaintiff.

This rule was introduced in the APPC and at the initial stage of judicial practice influenced the increase in the number of refunds.

A large number of lawsuits were returned by the court of first instance of Astana city due to the fact that the central administrative authorities are located in the capital.

In accordance with the first and second parts of Article 3 of the CPC, it regulates relations related to the implementation of internal administrative procedures, as well as the procedure for administrative proceedings.

The participants in the relations regulated by the Code are state bodies, administrative bodies, officials, as well as individuals and legal entities.

The subject of the legal regulation of the APPC is the activity of administrative bodies related to the adoption, cancellation, modification, and execution of a legally authoritative decision aimed at establishing, changing, or canceling the rights and obligations of specific persons, and performing legally significant actions.

Based on the meaning of paragraph 1 of the NPA No. 5, the courts should distinguish between disputes arising in the process of selecting a supplier and concluding a contract with him on GZ, the procedure for consideration of which is regulated by the rules of the CPC, and disputes arising from the contract on GZ, which are considered in civil proceedings.

The courts have received claims arising from the GZ agreement, in particular, for recognition as illegitimate and cancellation:

a) actions of the customer to send a notice of termination of the contract;

b) the defendant's failure to take measures to terminate the contract and the obligation to terminate it;

c) notification of termination prior to the negotiation unilaterally;

d) actions to send such notification.

The return of such claims by the courts is justified by the fact that disputes are not based on administrative or other authority subordination or dependence of one party (supplier) to the other (customer) by virtue of the powers of administrative bodies established by regulatory legal acts.

In this case, the stated claims contain a dispute over the terms of the contract concluded between the customer and the supplier, which excludes public relations between them.

In such cases, the claims were lawfully returned under subparagraph 2) of part seven of Article 3 of the CPC, which states that cases whose procedure is provided for by the CPC are not subject to administrative proceedings.

The plaintiffs challenged the audit report and the audit opinion based on the results of the internal state audit, and the courts reasonably concluded that such claims had been returned.

It should be noted that for a short time there were questions about the jurisdiction of these disputes due to the repeated amendments to Article 19 of the GAiFK Law.

Thus, from July 1 to July 6, 2021, this article provided that the GAiFK bodies would know the results of the state audit conducted by other GAiFK bodies, with the exception of documents from the internal audit services, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Article, unless they were declared illegal by a court in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. about administrative proceedings.

Since July 6, 2021, this rule has been changed with the transfer of disputes to civil procedural jurisdiction, which, according to the authors of this analysis, is reasonable from the point of view of legal logic, since the auditor's report and the audit report8, in the first case, contains the conclusions and recommendations of the auditors, in the second, the audit results.

However, these documents do not have the mandatory criteria of an administrative act.9 At the same time, the courts should pay attention to the fact that, according to subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the GAiFK Law, one of the financial control response measures is to issue mandatory orders for all government agencies, organizations and officials to eliminate identified violations and to consider the responsibility of those who committed them.

In addition, paragraph 7 of Article 58-4 of the same Law presupposes the right to appeal against the decisions of the appeal commission of the authorized body in the field of GAiFK.

Challenging such orders and decisions of the appeals commission is carried out in administrative proceedings, as well as challenging the actions (inaction) of the GAiFK bodies and (or) their officials10 if they meet the criteria of an administrative act, action (inaction).

Abbreviations

Administrative act – administrative act;

GZ - public procurement;

RNU – register of unscrupulous participants in public procurement;

SMAS – specialized interdistrict Administrative Court;

SCAD – judicial board for administrative cases of the regional court;

SCAD of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

SMEC – specialized interdistrict Economic Court;

Ministry of Finance - Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

Treasury – Treasury Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

KVGA – Internal State Audit Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

DVGA – Department of Internal State Audit of the Internal State Audit Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

GAiFK – State audit and Financial control;

CD – tender documentation;

PSD – design and estimate documentation;

SN RK – building regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Regulatory legal framework

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan; the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CC);

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CPC)

Administrative Procedural Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (APPK);

Budget Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

The Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Public Procurement" (the Law on Public Procurement);

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On State Audit and Financial Control" (the Law on GAiFK);

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts";

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the National Welfare Fund";

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On procurement of certain entities of the quasi-public sector";

Rules of public procurement approved by the Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 11, 2015 No. 648 (Rules No. 648);

Rules for the formation and maintenance of registers in the field of public procurement, approved by the Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2015 No. 694 (Rules No. 694);

The rules of desk control approved by the Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 30, 2015 No. 598 (Rules No. 598);

Rules for conducting Internal State audit and Financial Control, approved by the Order of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 19, 2018 No. 392 (Rules No. 392);

Special procedure for public procurement, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2020 No. 127 (valid until December 31, 2020) Rules for public procurement using a special procedure, approved by Resolution of the Government of Kazakhstan dated December 31, 2015 No. 1200 (Rules No. 1200);

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 21, 2022 No. 4 "On the application of Legislation on Public Procurement by Courts" (NPWS No. 4);

The Fund's Procurement Management Standard, approved by the decision of the Board of Directors of the Fund No. 31/19 dated September 3, 2019;

other regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Attention!

Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.

For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases