Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
an application turns into an examination of the knowledge of the documents of the national standardization system in great details for a huge amount of goods , which does not correlate with the firm ’ s actual qualifications .
Also , customers often shy away from accurately specifying the scope of work or the quantity of goods purchased , directly indicating their possible un-limitedness . In our opinion , this approach directly contradicts Part 2 of Art . 42 , moreover , without a clear definition of the scope of the purchased works or goods , such a state contract can be considered as non-concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation . However , in the purchase no . 0394100001014000001 the scope of work on creating courses was formulated as “ at least 1,008 ” ( Russian Federal Treasury , 2018 ). This means that there may be 2,000 or more courses , which naturally will scare away many bona fide participants . Or in the purchase of 0360100015616000115 “ the daily amount of work must be at least 500 square meters per day .” ( Russian Federal Treasury , 2018 ).
An important sticking point between customers and suppliers is the question of the legality or illegality of the admission of a procurement participant to view the object for which work is required . This is especially true for repairs . Customers most often refuse to participants in the inspection of repaired objects before the conclusion of the contract and even at the stage of its conclusion , although this is not directly prohibited by law .
Despite the fact that the most frequent and common ways of restricting competition in public procurement are various tricks of customers at the supplier determination stage , there are many different ways to get rid of unwanted participants after determining the winner , who will be contracted . These methods are often aimed at relieving the participant from the desire to participate in the procurement of this customer afterwards , or in some way to terminate the contract .
Very often , procurement participants with whom a contract is made , face excessive claims from customers . These claims can be aimed not only at real quality assurance of goods and works , but also at creating additional obstacles for the bidder . In this situation , the contractor has virtually no opportunity to resolve this issue in the legal framework . For example , during the execution of the procurement contract 0360300298216000014 , the customer sent claims to the contractor daily several hours after the daily work was completed ( Russian Federal Treasury , 2018 ). Considering that the essence of the work was street cleaning of monuments , it was extremely difficult to prove the quality of work to the contractor , since the street garbage can occur at any time . The customer required the contractor to provide video evidence of the fact of the work , despite the absence of such a condition in the contract . For the contractor , this meant hiring a videographer with the same contract budget . As a result , the customer greatly reduced the amount of payment under the contract .
160