OREANDA-NEWS. February 10, 2009. The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District confirmed legitimacy and relevance of the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) regarding the Federal Agency for Water Resources, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

Earlier FAS Russia found that the Federal Agency for Water Resources violated the Federal Law "On State and Municipal Procurement of Goods, Works and Services".

FAS Russia received a complaint from "MEDTECHSTROI" Ltd. regarding the actions of the Federal Agency for Water Resources in an open tender for the maintenance of the intrusion detection system and fire alarm system, automatic fire-extinguishing system, systems of television, video surveillance, 3-programme radio broadcasting, transmission and location, and structured cabling system in 2008.

"MEDTECHSTROI" Ltd. stated that the Ordering Party had not specified the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison in the tender documentation and the Protocol.

FAS Russia found the complaint justified in the part that the tender documentation had not specified the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison. The procedures were also not described in the Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol.

Under Part 7 Article 65 of the Law on state procurement, the Ordering Party must specify statutory criteria, their content and significance in the tender documentation. In accordance with the Chapter "Informational Map of the Tender", the bids evaluation criteria as well as maximum and minimum scores allocated under each criterion are specified in the tender documentation. However, the tender documentation did not describe the procedures for allocating scored under each criterion. Therefore, the Federal Agency breached Part 7 Article 65 of the Law.

In accord with Part 10 Article 28 of the Law, the Tender Commission keeps the Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol, which should include information on the location, date, and time of bids evaluation and comparison, etc.

The Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol, however, did not contain the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison, which contravened Part 10 Article 28 of the Law.

The Federal Agency for Water Resources filed a suit to the Moscow Arbitration Court and later to the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court. Finally, the Agency lodged a cassation appeal to the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District.

The Courts dismissed the claim of the Federal Agency for Water Resources in full.