On the recognition of the protocol on the results of the invalidation of the public procurement contract as illegal
No.6001-22-00-6ap/2478 dated 7.03.2023
Plaintiff: A-S LLP
Respondent: State Institution "Public Procurement Department of East Kazakhstan region", State Institution "Department of Architecture, Urban Planning and Construction of Zaisan district", LLP "S"
The subject of the dispute: the recognition of the protocol on the results of June 24, 2022 as illegal, the invalidation of the public procurement contract dated June 27, 2022 No. 26
Review of the defendant's cassation complaint PLOT:
State Institution "Public Procurement Department of East Kazakhstan Region" held an open tender for public procurement No. 6703396-1 "Construction of intra-village and intra-block gasification networks" in 8 settlements of Zaisan district of East Kazakhstan region (Bakasu, Birzhan, Dayyr, Zharsu, Kokzhyra, Kuanysh, Saryzhyra, Saryterek). According to the results of the competition dated March 15, 2022, LLP "S" was recognized as the winner, and LLP "A-C" took the second place.
According to the complaint of LLP "A-C" of the Russian State Institution "Department of Internal State Audit for the East Kazakhstan region" (hereinafter referred to as the Department), the organizer of the competition was notified of the elimination of violations identified by the results of desk control.
As a result of the repeated results of the competition dated June 24, 2022, S LLP was again named the winner, with which the public procurement contract No. 26 dated June 27, 2022 was concluded.
The plaintiff, disagreeing with the results of the repeated results, challenged them in court, believing that a conditional discount was illegally applied to LLP "S" for having work experience on Dostyk facilities in 2013 and Badam in 2014.,
Samal-3 is 2015.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is satisfied.
Appeal: the decision is upheld.
Cassation: judicial acts are cancelled, the claim is denied.
Conclusions:
When satisfying the claim, the courts agreed with the plaintiff's arguments, referring to the prejudicial significance of the SCAD resolution of February 17, 2022 and other information regarding the level of responsibility of the listed facilities. At the same time, the arguments of S LLP on the confirmation of work experience were found to be untenable.
By the resolution of the SCAD of the Supreme Court dated February 17, 2022, as part of the resolution of another dispute, the courts established the inconsistency of the acts of S LLP due to technical deficiencies in the submitted documents. These comments were understandable, and at the time of participation in the contested competition, the information provided by S LLP corresponded to the requirements in its form and content. Therefore, this judicial act had no prejudicial significance in this case.
Verification of documents in the electronic depository was completed at the time of the dispute consideration, accordingly, the conclusions of the courts of first instance on the unreliability of documents only on the basis of other evidence, without taking into account the data of the depository, are not valid.
Information about the work experience of S LLP, declared by him at the competition, is contained in the electronic depository with the status "confirmed". This fact was not denied by the participants of the competition and the administrative process. The contrary has not been established by the case materials and the courts.
The calculation of the conditional discount based on the work experience of potential suppliers based on the information contained in the electronic depository with the status "confirmed" was carried out reasonably by the competition commission.
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
