flarione.ru → History and facts

An example of assessing the application criteria of 44 Federal Laws. How to confirm qualifications to participate in a competition if there were no contracts for the work performed? Cost criteria for evaluating applications

When describing the non-cost criteria for evaluating applications in the tender documentation, the customer must be clear and specific. Meanwhile, there are still quite a lot of violations when establishing such criteria. Let's analyze the most common ones.

The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2013 No. 1085 approved the Rules for the evaluation of applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to provide public and municipal needs(hereinafter referred to as the Rules) applicable to all procurements.

To evaluate applications (proposals) for each evaluation criterion, a 100-point rating scale is used (clause 11 of the Rules). If, in accordance with clause 10 of the Rules regarding the evaluation criterion in the procurement documentation, the customer provides indicators, then for each indicator its significance is established, according to which it will be evaluated. In addition, for indicators there must be a formula for calculating the number of points or a scale of limit values for the significance of assessment indicators, which determines the intervals of their changes, or the order of their determination.

In order to use a rating scale to evaluate applications (proposals), the customer must establish in the procurement documentation the number of points awarded for a certain value of the evaluation criterion (indicator) proposed by the procurement participant (clause 29 of the Rules). Let us examine common examples of violations when establishing non-cost criteria for evaluating applications.

Application evaluation mechanism

The competition commission evaluates accepted applications for participation in the competition in order to identify the winner of the competition based on the criteria specified in the documentation (Part 5 of Article 53 of Law No. 44-FZ).

Evaluation is the process of identifying, in accordance with the conditions for determining suppliers according to evaluation criteria and in the manner established in the procurement documentation in accordance with the requirements of the Rules, the best conditions for the execution of the contract specified in the applications (proposals) of procurement participants that were not rejected.

Based on the results of the evaluation of applications, the commission assigns each application a number in decreasing order of the degree of profitability of the contract terms and conditions contained therein. Application for participation in the competition, which contains best conditions execution of the contract, the first number is assigned (Part 7, Article 53 of Law No. 44-FZ).

To identify a supplier, contractor or contractor, you first need to plan electronic procedures. Get electronic signature. Choose a site that in the best possible way suits your organization, and register. Next, generate documentation and notices, carry out procedures and identify a supplier and conclude a contract, taking into account the characteristics of each procurement method.
See solutions for each electronic way: auction, competition, request for quotations, request for proposals.

Violation No. 1: required information is not defined

>One of the typical violations is when the customer, when establishing the procedure for evaluating applications, does not disclose the essence of the information required from participants.

Thus, in the tender documentation, the customer according to the criterion “Qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object” (indicator - “The degree of elaboration of the proposal for the execution of work, the quality and elaboration of the technical solution, the presence in the technical proposals of additional unique functionality that affects the efficiency of the system”) indicated that the assessment is carried out for each application separately:

0 points—detailed proposals for performing the work are not provided;
50 points - a detailed description of the work is presented, but the proposal does not contain technical proposals on the use of additional unique functionality that affects the efficiency of the system;
100 points - the submitted detailed proposal for the work contains technical proposals for the use of additional unique functionality that affects the efficiency of the system.

However, the competition documentation does not define what the detailed description of work in the participants’ proposal means as “additional unique functionality.” This means that this procedure for assessing applications does not allow us to identify best offer about the execution of the contract.

In addition, it does not make it possible to determine what information the procurement participants must describe and submit for evaluation by the competition commission according to this indicator of the criterion “Qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object.”

Thus, it is impossible to establish a relationship between the number of points awarded and the information provided in applications for this indicator. This violates the provisions of clause 11 of the Rules and part 8 of Art. 32, clause 9, part 1, art. 50 of Law No. 44-FZ.

Violation No. 2: the maximum assessed indicators have not been established

In practice, there are cases when the customer does not specify in the documentation the maximum number of indicators to be assessed. Such indicators, for example, may be the number of employees, work experience, and the like.

It follows from this that, for example, a proposal with 10 specialists and a proposal with 100 specialists should be assessed equally, assigning them 100 points. Meanwhile, it is obvious that a proposal containing information about 100 specialists will be better than that, which contains information about 10 specialists.

If you do not set the maximum number of evaluated indicators, then it is impossible to objectively determine the best offer of procurement participants based on the criterion for evaluating competitive bids. This violates the law.

To evaluate applications (proposals) according to non-cost evaluation criteria (indicators), the customer has the right to establish the maximum required minimum or maximum quantitative value of qualitative, functional, environmental and qualification characteristics, which are subject to evaluation within the specified criteria. In this case, when evaluating applications (proposals) according to such criteria (indicators), procurement participants who made an offer corresponding to this value, or the best offer, are assigned 100 points.

Thus, the competition documentation must contain a proportional relationship (a formula for calculating the number of points or a rating scale) between the number of points assigned and the information provided on non-cost criteria.

Violation No. 3: parameters for assessing the quality of work are not specified

Another typical violation is that in terms of the “quality of work” indicator, the customer does not specifically specify the parameters that he will evaluate. In this regard, participants will not be able to formulate or adjust proposals towards the needs of the customer in order to increase the preference of their applications.

Here's an example of this. In accordance with the procedure for evaluating applications established in the tender documentation, the customer’s competition commission for the “Quality of Work” indicator of the non-cost criterion assigns 20 points to the procurement participant for each of the five proposals:

description of the quantity and types of work performed;
proposal to ensure quality control of work performed during the development of design and estimate documentation;
availability of a description of the processes of interaction between the customer and the designer;
description of the sequence of work;
availability of a description of technical solutions for the development of design and estimate documentation.

These proposals are added up based on 5 points for each of the five proposals meeting one of the established four requirements:

a proposal has been submitted for all works;
the proposal contains information about the methods (methodology) of its implementation;
the offer corresponds to the current ones regulatory documents, methods and standards used in the subject area;
the proposal does not contain errors or contradictions that may affect the quality or timing of the work).

In this case, the number of points awarded to the application according to the indicators is calculated as the total number of points for all submitted proposals.

If the requirements for a proposal within the framework of this “Quality of Work” indicator do not correspond or are absent in the procurement participant’s application, then the specified proposals are assessed with zero points.

However, there is no information here regarding what specific parameters the customer evaluates in this indicator.

This does not allow procurement participants to formulate or adjust their applications in the specified part towards the needs of the customer in order to increase the preference of these applications.

Thus, such tender documentation of the customer contains a violation of the provisions of clause 11 of the Evaluation Rules and the provisions of part 8 of Art. 32, clause 9, part 1, art. 50 of Law No. 44-FZ. After all, such requirements for proposals to procurement participants, such as No. 1, 3, 4, do not allow them to determine what documents and information must be offered as part of the application in order to obtain the maximum score for the indicator “Qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object.”

The absence of the information described in the article when establishing non-cost criteria for an application leaves the evaluation of applications and the selection of the procurement winner to the subjective discretion of the customer. This entails limiting the number of procurement participants in violation of clause 1, part 1, art. 33 of Law No. 44-FZ.

GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

RESOLUTION

On approval of the Rules for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs

Document with changes made:
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 03.21.2016, N 0001201603210007);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 10.24.2016, N 0001201610240013);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 11/17/2016, N 0001201611170023);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 01/29/2019, N 0001201901290022);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 03/07/2019, N 0001201903070013);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 03.28.2019, N 0001201903280031).
____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
Changes approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 20, 2016 N 1076 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 20, 2016 N 1076 - paragraph 2 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 20, 2016 N 1076.

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
The changes approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2019 N 200 do not apply to procurements, notices of which are posted in the unified information system in the field of procurement before the date of entry into force or invitations to participate in which (draft procurement contracts) are sent before the date of entry into force of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2019 N 200 - paragraph 2 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2018 N 200.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
The changes approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2019 N 293, do not apply to relations related to the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs, notices of the implementation of which are posted in the unified information system in the field of procurement until the day entry into force or invitations to participate in which were sent before the day of entry into force of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2019 N 293 - see paragraph 2 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2019 N 293.
____________________________________________________________________

In accordance with the Federal Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" the Government Russian Federation

decides:

1. Approve the attached Rules for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs.

2. To recognize as invalid:

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 10, 2009 N 722 “On approval of the Rules for evaluating applications for participation in a competition for the right to conclude a state or municipal contract for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state or municipal needs” (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2009 , N 38, art. 4477);

paragraph 31 of the changes that are made to the acts of the Government of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 17, 2010 N 1045 “On amendments and invalidation of certain acts of the Government of the Russian Federation” (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2010, N 52, Art. 7104);

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2012 N 265 “On amendments to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 10, 2009 N 722” (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2012, N 14, Art. 1659).

Chairman of the Government
Russian Federation
D.Medvedev

Rules for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs

APPROVED
Government resolution
Russian Federation
dated November 28, 2013 N 1085

I. General provisions

1. These Rules determine the procedure for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs (hereinafter referred to as procurement) in order to identify the best of the proposed conditions for the execution of the contract during the procurement, as well as the maximum significance values of each evaluation criterion applications, final proposals of procurement participants (hereinafter - application, proposal).

2. These Rules apply to all purchases, with the exception of purchases carried out through an auction, request for quotations, sole supplier(contractor, performer).
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 25, 2019 N 41.

3. The following terms are used in these Rules:

“evaluation” is the process of identifying, in accordance with the conditions for determining suppliers (contractors, performers) according to evaluation criteria and in the manner established in the procurement documentation in accordance with the requirements of these Rules, the best conditions for the execution of the contract specified in the applications (proposals) of procurement participants, which were not rejected;

“significance of the evaluation criterion” - the weight of the evaluation criterion in the totality of evaluation criteria established in the procurement documentation in accordance with the requirements of these Rules, expressed as a percentage;

“evaluation criterion significance coefficient” - the weight of the evaluation criterion in the totality of evaluation criteria established in the procurement documentation in accordance with the requirements of these Rules, divided by 100;

“Application (proposal) rating by evaluation criterion” - a score in points received by a procurement participant based on the results of evaluation by evaluation criterion, taking into account the significance coefficient of the evaluation criterion.

4. For the purposes of these Rules, for the evaluation of applications (proposals), the customer establishes the following evaluation criteria in the procurement documentation:

a) characterized as cost evaluation criteria:

contract price;

expenses for operation and repair of goods (objects), use of work results;

price life cycle a product (object) created as a result of performing work in the cases provided for in paragraph 5 of these Rules (hereinafter referred to as the life cycle cost);

proposal on the amount of the customer's relevant expenses that the customer will make or incur under the energy service contract;

b) characterized as non-cost evaluation criteria:

qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object;

qualifications of procurement participants, including whether they have financial resources, equipment and others material resources belonging to them by right of ownership or on another legal basis, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other workers of a certain skill level.

5. In the case of a purchase, as a result of which a contract is concluded providing for the purchase of goods (performance of work), subsequent maintenance (operation) during the service life, repair, disposal (if necessary) of the delivered goods or an object created as a result of the work (life contract cycle), as well as in other cases established by the Government of the Russian Federation for the evaluation of applications (proposals), the customer has the right in the procurement documentation to establish, instead of cost criteria, the evaluation criterion “life cycle cost”.

6. The use of the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of the results of work” is possible only if the contract, in addition to the delivery of goods (performance of work), provides for further operation and repair of the goods (use of the object created as a result of the work) , including the supply of consumables.

7. Evaluation in accordance with paragraph 6 of these Rules in terms of goods is carried out according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), and in terms of work - according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the use of the object created as a result of the work”.

8. In the procurement documentation, the customer is obliged to indicate the evaluation criteria used to determine the supplier (contractor, performer) and the significance of the evaluation criteria. In this case, the number of evaluation criteria used to determine the supplier (contractor, performer) when making a procurement must be at least two, one of which must be the evaluation criterion “contract price”, and in the cases provided for in paragraph 5 of these Rules, the evaluation criterion “cost” life cycle".

9. The sum of the significance values of the evaluation criteria used by the customer must be 100 percent. The significance value of the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (facilities), use of work results” should not exceed the significance value of the evaluation criterion “contract price”.

10. In the procurement documentation in relation to non-cost evaluation criteria, indicators may be provided that reveal the content of non-cost evaluation criteria and take into account the peculiarities of evaluating purchased goods, works, services according to non-cost evaluation criteria.

11. To evaluate applications (proposals) for each evaluation criterion, a 100-point rating scale is used. If, in accordance with paragraph 10 of these Rules, the customer provides indicators in relation to the evaluation criterion in the procurement documentation, then for each indicator its significance is established, in accordance with which the assessment will be made, and a formula for calculating the number of points awarded for such indicators, or a scale of maximum the significance values of assessment indicators, establishing the intervals of their changes, or the order of their determination.

To evaluate applications (proposals) according to non-cost evaluation criteria (indicators), the customer has the right to establish the maximum required minimum or maximum quantitative value of qualitative, functional, environmental and qualification characteristics that are subject to evaluation within the specified criteria. In this case, when evaluating applications (proposals) according to such criteria (indicators), procurement participants who made an offer corresponding to this value, or the best offer, are assigned 100 points.

The sum of the significance values of the evaluation criterion indicators should be 100 percent.

The significance of the evaluation criteria should be established depending on the purchased goods, works, and services in accordance with the maximum values of the significance of the evaluation criteria according to the appendix.

In the case of a procurement, the results of which result in a contract for construction, reconstruction, major repairs, or demolition of particularly dangerous, technically complex and unique facilities capital construction, as well as artificial road structures included in highways of federal, regional or intermunicipal, local significance, it is allowed to establish in the procurement documentation as non-cost evaluation criteria exclusively the evaluation criterion “qualification of procurement participants, including the availability of financial resources and equipment and other material resources belonging to them by right of ownership or other legal basis, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level,” indicators of such criterion specified in paragraph 27_1 of these Rules.
(The paragraph was additionally included from March 15, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2019 N 200 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 21, 2019 N 293.

In the event of a purchase, the results of which result in a contract providing for the implementation construction work, the customer is obliged to establish the indicator specified in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 27 of these Rules, except for the case provided for in paragraph 30 of these Rules. In this case, the significance of the indicator must be at least 50 percent of the significance of all non-cost evaluation criteria.

In the case of a procurement, as a result of which a contract is concluded providing for the provision of services for organizing children’s recreation and their health, the customer is obliged to establish the indicator specified in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 27 of these Rules. In this case, the significance of the indicator must be at least 45 percent of the significance of all non-cost evaluation criteria.
(The paragraph was additionally included on November 1, 2016 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 20, 2016 N 1076 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2019 N 200.

12. The clause has lost force since February 6, 2019 - Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2019 N 41..

13. The customer is not allowed to use evaluation criteria (indicators) or their significance values not provided for by these Rules. The customer is not allowed to use evaluation criteria or their significance values that are not specified in the procurement documentation.
(Clause as amended, put into effect on February 6, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2019 N 41.

15. The winner is the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is assigned the highest final rating. The application (proposal) of such a procurement participant is assigned the first serial number.

II. Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to cost evaluation criteria

16. The number of points awarded according to the evaluation criteria “contract price” and “life cycle cost” () is determined by the formula:

a) if > 0,

Where:

b) if< 0,

where is the maximum offer among the proposals for the criterion made by the procurement participants.

17. Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of the results of work” can be carried out when purchasing goods or work to create objects that, while meeting the basic functional and quality requirements of the customer, may vary in cost operation and repair (use of work results).

Based on the characteristics of the purchased goods created as a result of the work of the facilities, the customer has the right to establish in the procurement documentation and take into account when assessing one or more types of operating costs or a set of expected costs.

The types of estimated operating costs taken into account during the assessment are established by the customer in the procurement documentation based on the characteristics of the purchased product (object) and the expected conditions of its operation and repair (use of work results).

The number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of work results” () is determined by the formula:

Where:

- the minimum proposal from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

- proposal of the procurement participant on the amount of expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), use of the results of work during the established service life or service life of the goods (object), the application (proposal) of which is being evaluated.

18. The procurement participant’s proposal for the amount of expenses for the operation and repair of goods (objects), the use of work results during the established service life or service life of the goods (object), the application (proposal) of which is evaluated () is determined by the formula:

Where:

n is the number of types of operating costs taken into account in the assessment;

- the amount of operating costs, provided for by the i-th application by type of expense (t), during the service life or operation of the product (object) specified in the procurement documentation.

19. If all applications contain the same proposals according to the criterion “expenses for the operation and repair of goods (facilities), use of work results,” applications (proposals) are not evaluated according to this criterion. In this case, the significance value of the criterion “contract price” increases by the significance value of the criterion “expenses for operation and repair of goods (objects), use of work results.”

III. Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to non-cost evaluation criteria

20. Assessment based on non-cost criteria (indicators), with the exception of cases of assessment based on the indicators specified in subparagraphs “a” and “c” of paragraph 25 of these Rules, and cases when the customer has established a rating scale, is carried out in the manner established by paragraphs 21-24 of these Rules.

21. If for the customer the best condition for fulfilling the contract according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) is the lowest value of the evaluation criterion (indicator), except for the case provided for in paragraph 20 of these Rules, the number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) () is determined according to the formula:

Where:

- the minimum proposal from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

- proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated.

22. If for the customer the best condition for fulfilling the contract according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) is the lowest value of the evaluation criterion (indicator), the customer, in accordance with paragraph two of paragraph 11 of these Rules, has established the maximum required minimum value specified in paragraph two of paragraph 11 of these Rules, the number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) () is determined by:

a) if > , - according to the formula:

b) if , - according to the formula:

in this case = KZ100,

Where:

KZ - coefficient of significance of the indicator. If one indicator is used, KZ = 1;

- the minimum proposal from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

- proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated;

- the number of points according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) awarded to procurement participants whose supply is less than the required minimum value established by the customer.

23. If for the customer the best condition for fulfilling the contract according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) is the highest value of the evaluation criterion (indicator), except for the case provided for in paragraph 24 of these Rules, the number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) () is determined according to the formula:

Where:

KZ - coefficient of significance of the indicator. If one indicator is used, KZ = 1;

- proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated;

- the maximum offer from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants.

24. If for the customer the best condition for fulfilling the contract according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) is the highest value of the criterion (indicator), the customer, in accordance with paragraph two of paragraph 11 of these Rules, has established the maximum required maximum value specified in paragraph two of paragraph 11 of these Rules Rules, the number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) () is determined by:

a) if< , - по формуле:

b) if, - according to the formula:

in this case = KZ100,

Where:

KZ - coefficient of significance of the indicator. If one indicator is used, KZ = 1;

- proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated;

- the maximum offer from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

- the maximum required value of the characteristics specified by the customer, specified in paragraph two of clause 11 of these Rules;

- the number of points according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) awarded to participants whose proposal exceeds the required maximum value established by the customer.

25. Indicators of the non-cost evaluation criterion “qualitative, functional and environmental characteristics of the procurement object” may include:

a) quality of goods (quality of work, quality of services);

b) functional, consumer properties goods;

c) compliance with environmental standards.

26. The number of points assigned to an application (proposal) for the indicators provided for in paragraph 25 of these Rules is determined as the arithmetic average of the scores (in points) of all members of the procurement commission awarded to the application (proposal) for each of the specified indicators.

27. The indicators of the non-cost evaluation criterion are “the qualifications of procurement participants, including their availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources belonging to them by right of ownership or on another legal basis, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level" may be the following indicators (taking into account the features provided for in paragraph 27_1 of these Rules):
(Paragraph as amended, put into effect on March 15, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2019 N 200.

a) qualification labor resources(managers and key specialists) proposed to perform work or provide services;

b) the participant’s experience in successfully delivering goods, performing work, and providing services of a comparable nature and volume;

c) provision of the procurement participant with material and technical resources in terms of whether the procurement participant has its own or leased production capacity, technological equipment necessary to perform work or provide services;

d) provision of the procurement participant with labor resources;

e) business reputation of the procurement participant.

27_1. When making a purchase, as a result of which a contract is concluded providing for the provision of services for organizing children’s recreation and their health, the customer establishes that the indicator of the non-cost evaluation criterion provided for in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 27 of these Rules is formed exclusively from the following sub-indicators:

the total cost of executed contracts (agreements) for the provision of services for organizing children's recreation and their health;

total quantity executed contracts (agreements) for the provision of services for organizing children's recreation and their health;

the highest price of one of the executed contracts (agreements) for the provision of services for organizing children's recreation and their health improvement.

The customer does not have the right to change the significance of the sub-indicators specified in paragraphs two to four of this paragraph, as well as establish other sub-indicators in relation to the non-cost evaluation criterion provided for in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 27 of these Rules.
(The paragraph was additionally included on March 15, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2019 N 200)

27_1.* In the case of a purchase, the results of which result in a contract for construction, reconstruction, major repairs, demolition of particularly dangerous, technically complex and unique capital construction projects, as well as artificial road structures included in federal and regional highways or intermunicipal, local significance, according to the non-cost evaluation criterion “qualification of procurement participants, including their availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources belonging to them by right of ownership or other legal basis, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain skill level”, one or more of the following indicators are established in the procurement documentation:

* The numbering corresponds to the changes introduced by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2019 N 293. - Database manufacturer's note.

a) the total cost of executed contracts (agreements) for construction, reconstruction, major repairs, demolition work;

b) the total number of executed contracts (agreements) for construction, reconstruction, major repairs, demolition work;

c) the highest price of one of the executed contracts (agreements) for construction, reconstruction, major repairs, or demolition work.
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 21, 2019 N 293)

27_2. To evaluate applications (proposals) according to the indicators provided for in paragraph 27_1 of these Rules, the customer has the right to provide for an assessment of work experience related to the subject of contracts (agreements) providing for the performance of construction, reconstruction, major repairs, and demolition work only for the following groups of objects:

a) capital construction projects;

b) especially dangerous, technically complex and unique capital construction projects, as well as artificial road structures included in highways of federal, regional or intermunicipal, local significance;

c) especially dangerous, technically complex or unique capital construction projects, or artificial road structures included in the highways of federal, regional or intermunicipal, local significance, related to the type of capital construction project, artificial road structure, construction, reconstruction work, major repairs, the demolition of which is the subject of procurement;

d) capital construction objects, including especially dangerous, technically complex and unique capital construction objects, as well as artificial road structures included in federal, regional or intermunicipal, local highways, related to the type of capital construction object, artificial road structure, execution works on construction, reconstruction, major repairs, demolition of which are the subject of procurement.
(The paragraph was additionally included on April 5, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2019 N 293)

28. Evaluation of applications (proposals) according to the non-cost evaluation criterion “qualification of procurement participants, including their availability of financial resources, equipment and other material resources belonging to them by right of ownership or on another legal basis, work experience related to the subject of the contract, and business reputation, specialists and other employees of a certain level of qualification" is carried out if indicators are established in the procurement documentation in accordance with paragraph 10 of these Rules, revealing the content of the corresponding evaluation criterion, indicating (if necessary) the minimum or maximum value required by the customer, provided paragraph two of clause 11 of these Rules.

29. To use a rating scale for the purpose of evaluating applications (proposals), the customer must establish in the procurement documentation the number of points awarded for a certain value of the evaluation criterion (indicator) proposed by the procurement participant. If several indicators are used, the value determined in accordance with the rating scale must be adjusted taking into account the indicator's significance coefficient.

30. If procurement participants are presented with additional requirements in accordance with Part 2 of Article 31 of the Federal Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs", such additional requirements cannot be used as criteria for evaluating applications (proposals).

Appendix to the Rules. Limit values for the significance of criteria for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs

Application
to the Rules for evaluating applications, final
proposals from participants in the procurement of goods,
works, services to ensure
state and municipal needs


		Limit values for the significance of evaluation criteria
		minimum significance of cost evaluation criteria (percentage)	maximum significance of non-cost evaluation criteria (percentage)
	Products excluding individual species goods
	Works, services with the exception of certain types of works, services
	Certain types of goods, works, services:
	development of documents regulating training, education, quality control of education in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education
	performing emergency rescue operations
	carrying out restoration of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, reconstruction and repair work, without which restoration is impossible, subject to the inclusion of reconstruction and repair work in one subject of the contract (one lot) with the restoration of such objects, restoration museum objects and museum collections included in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation, documents from the Archive Fund of the Russian Federation, especially valuable and rare documents included in library collections
	rendering medical services, educational services(training, education), legal services
	provision of examination and audit services
	provision of services to a specialized organization
	work on the creation, development, operation and maintenance of state (municipal) information systems, official websites of state (municipal) bodies, institutions
	creation of works of literature and art in relation to the objects specified in Part 7 of Article 32 of the Federal Law "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs",
	performance (as a result of intellectual activity), financing the distribution or screening of a national film, carrying out research, development or technological work
	carrying out construction, reconstruction, major repairs, demolition of especially dangerous, technically complex and unique capital construction projects, as well as artificial road structures included in federal, regional or intermunicipal, local highways
(Position as amended, put into effect on March 29, 2016 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2016 N 202; as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 20, 2016 N 1076; as amended , put into effect on November 25, 2016 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 14, 2016 N 1184; as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2019 N 200; from April 5, 2019 by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 21, 2019 N 293.

Revision of the document taking into account
changes and additions prepared
JSC "Kodeks"

14. When evaluating applications according to the “contract price” criterion (“contract price per unit of goods, work, service”), the use of subcriteria is not allowed.

15. To determine the rating of an application according to the criterion “contract price” (“contract price per unit of goods, work, service”), the initial (maximum) contract price (the sum of the initial (maximum) prices per unit of goods, work, services, provided for in the tender documentation, if the criterion “contract price per unit of goods, work, service” is applied).

Ra_i =	A_max - A_i	x 100	,
	A_max

A_max - the initial (maximum) price of the contract established in the tender documentation (the sum of the initial (maximum) prices per unit of goods, work, services established in the tender documentation) in accordance with paragraph 15 of these Rules;

A_i - offer of the i-th tenderer for the contract price (based on the sum of prices per unit of goods, work, service).

17. To calculate the final rating for an application in accordance with paragraph 11 of these Rules, the rating assigned to this application according to the criterion “contract price” (“contract price per unit of goods, work, service”) is multiplied by the significance corresponding to the specified criterion.

18. When evaluating applications according to the criterion “contract price” (“contract price per unit of goods, work, service”), the best condition for the execution of a state (municipal) contract according to this criterion is the proposal of the bidder with the lowest contract price (with the lowest amount of prices per unit goods, work, services).

The state (municipal) contract is concluded on the terms of this criterion specified in the application.

Criteria for evaluating applications for participation in the competition

Criteria for evaluating applications for participation, the significance of these criteria, the procedure for considering and evaluating applications for participation in the competition

To determine the best terms for the execution of the contract proposed in the application for participation in the competition, a single commission reviews and evaluates such applications based on the contract price and other criteria specified in the competition documentation.

The criteria for evaluating applications for participation in the competition are:

1. Contract price – criterion significance 60%;

2. Qualification of the competition participant – criterion significance 40%, including:

2.1. the participant’s experience in successfully performing work of a comparable nature and scope;

2.2. qualifications of labor resources (managers and key specialists) proposed to perform the work;

Evaluation of applications for participation in the competition is carried out on the basis of Article 53 Federal Law"ABOUT contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs" dated 04/05/2013 No. 44-FZ and in accordance with the "Rules for evaluating applications, final proposals of participants in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs", approved Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2013 No. 1085, using the evaluation criteria provided for in this competition documentation.

The sum of the significance values of the evaluation criteria used by the customer must be 100 percent.

To evaluate applications (proposals) for each evaluation criterion, a 100-point rating scale is used.

The sum of the significance values of the evaluation criterion indicators should be 100 percent.

The winner is the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is assigned the highest final rating. The application (proposal) of such a procurement participant is assigned the first serial number.

1. Evaluation criterion “Contract price”.

The number of points awarded according to the evaluation criteria “contract price” is determined by the formula:

a) if,

The minimum proposal from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants;

b) if ,

where is the maximum offer among the proposals for the criterion made by the procurement participants.

2. Evaluation criterion “Qualification of the competition participant.”

To evaluate applications according to the criterion “Qualification of the competition participant” each application is assigned a value of up to 100 points, in accordance with those established in this tender documentation maximum values of indicators of this criterion.

Indicators are set:

2.1. The participant’s experience in successfully performing work of a comparable nature and scope:

(The number of contracts (agreements) is indicated. Information about the procurement participant having relevant experience is confirmed by copies of contracts (agreements) for the implementation of work on the development of design and estimate documentation for the improvement of the territory, for the last 4 years preceding the deadline for filing applications for participation in competition)) – 70 points;

2.2. qualifications of labor resources (managers and key specialists) proposed to perform the work. (Indicate the number of people. Information about whether the procurement participant has qualified managers and key specialists with higher education in the specialty "Building Design" are confirmed by copies work book or employment contract(contract), educational document) – 30 points.

The number of points awarded according to the evaluation criterion (indicator) ( ), is determined by the formula:

KZ - coefficient of significance of the indicator.

If one indicator is used, KZ = 1;

Proposal of the procurement participant whose application (proposal) is being evaluated;

The maximum offer from the proposals for the evaluation criterion made by the procurement participants.

Based on the results of the evaluation of applications for participation in the competition, a single commission assigns each application for participation in the competition a serial number in order of decreasing degree of profitability of the terms of the contract they contain. The application for participation in the competition, which contains the best conditions for the execution of the contract, is assigned the first number. If several applications for participation in the competition contain the same conditions for the execution of the contract, a lower serial number is assigned to the application for participation in the competition, which was received earlier than other applications for participation in the competition containing the same conditions.