If a potential supplier has not submitted a signed public procurement contract to the customer within the time limits established by the Law "On Public Procurement", then such a potential supplier is recognized as having evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract.
GU "A" filed a lawsuit against IP A. to recognize him as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement. The claim was satisfied by the decision of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of December 21, 2012. It was decided to recognize IP A. as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement. By the ruling of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court dated February 19, 2013, the court's decision was overturned. The decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and administrative cases of the Aktobe Regional Court of February 19, 2013 denied the claim. By the decision of the Cassation judicial Board of the Aktobe Regional Court dated June 25, 2013, the decision of the appellate judicial board for civil and administrative cases was overturned, while the decision of the court of first instance remained in force. In the petition of IP A. It requested that the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of cassation be annulled, while upholding the decision of the court of appeal, citing significant violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the courts. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the cassation judicial Board of the Aktobe Regional Court in this case and upheld the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court. The petition of IP A. was satisfied on the following grounds. The case materials established that by the decision of the State Institution "A" on approval of the results of public procurement by the method of price proposals dated September 19, 2012 for the maintenance and repair of vehicles using spare parts of a service provider in the amount of 790,000 tenge, IP A. was declared the winner. Based on the results of public procurement, GU "A" signed a draft contract and sent it to the defendant on September 25, 2012.A registered parcel with a signed public procurement contract dated September 21, 2012 was handed to the defendant's spouse on September 27, 2012. These circumstances are confirmed by the information provided by the control and reference sector of the AOF of Kazpost JSC dated December 20, 2012. It follows from the content of this response that IP A. the signed public procurement contract was sent to the plaintiff on October 10, 2012 by registered mail. The appellate judicial Board, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, justified its conclusions by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 10-day deadline for applying to the court for recognition as an unscrupulous participant in public procurement.
If a potential supplier has not submitted a signed public procurement contract to the customer within the time limits established by the Law "On Public Procurement", then such a potential supplier is recognized as having evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract.
Canceling the decision of the court of appeal, the court of cassation concluded that the plaintiff had not missed the 10-day deadline for filing a claim with the court, since the plaintiff had received the contract signed by IP A. only on October 12, 2012. These conclusions of the courts of first instance and cassation instances are unfounded, contradict the norms of legislation and do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. In accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 31 of the Law "On Public Procurement" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), the draft public procurement contract must be signed by the potential supplier who offered the lowest price offer, or by a certain winner in accordance with part three of paragraph 3 of this article and submitted to the customer within seven working days from the date of submission to him by the organizer. government procurement of the signed draft public procurement contract. The draft agreement signed by the defendant was sent to the plaintiff by mail on October 10, 2012, that is, after the expiration of the 7-day period. In accordance with article 38 of the Law, if a potential supplier has not submitted a signed public procurement contract to the customer within the time limits established by this Law, such a potential supplier shall be deemed to have evaded the conclusion of a public procurement contract. According to paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Law, in the cases provided for in subparagraphs 2), 3) and 4) of part 1 of this paragraph, the customer is obliged, no later than ten working days from the date on which he became aware of the violation by a potential supplier or supplier of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on public procurement, to file a lawsuit with the court for recognition such a potential supplier or supplier by an unscrupulous participant in public procurement. Thus, by virtue of the requirements of the Law, the draft contract signed by the potential supplier must be submitted to the customer within seven working days from the date of submission to him by the organizer of public procurement of the signed draft contract on public procurement. The defendant violated this requirement of the Law, which indicates avoidance of the conclusion of the contract, therefore, the plaintiff was obliged not to
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
