OREANDA-NEWS. July 22, 2008. The Moscow Arbitration Court confirmed validity 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 recognized 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 of "MEDTEKHSTROI" Ltd. on the actions of the Federal Agency for Water Resources in an open bidding for the services on maintaining the intruder and fire alarm system, automatic fire-control unit, the systems of television, video surveillance, 3-programme radio broadcasting and transmission, and structured cabling system in 2008.

"MEDTEKHSTROI" Ltd. stated that the Ordering Party had failed to specify the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison in the tender documentation - in the Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol.

FAS Russia recognized the complaint justified to the extent that the tender documentation had not specified the procedures for bid evaluation and comparison and that the Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol had not included the procedures for bid evaluation and comparison.

Representatives of the Federal Agency for Water Resources petitioned the Court, claiming that the FAS Russia's decision was beyond the FAS Russia's terms of reference and violated the procedural law, as well as that the actions of the Federal Agency for Water Resources had not violated Part 7 Article 65 of the Law.

Under Part 7 Article 65 of the Law, the Ordering Party must set the statutory criteria, their content and importance in the tender documentation. According to the "Information Map" Section, the tender documentation set the bid evaluation criteria and maximum and minimum scores given for each criterion. The tender documentation, however, did not include the procedures for allocating the scores for each criterion, which was in breach of Part 7 Article 65 of the Law.

The Federal Agency for Water Resources also stated that its actions had not violated Part 10 Article 28 of the Law.

Under Part 10 Article 28 of the Law, the tender commission keeps the Bids Evaluation and Comparison, which should have information on the location, date and time of bids evaluation and comparison, etc.

However, the Bids Evaluation and Comparison Protocol for the tender did not contain the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison as well as information on the decision made by each member of the Commission on the scores allocated to the bids on each of the bid evaluating criteria, which breached Part 10 Article 28 of the Law.

FAS Russia also does not accept the arguments of the Agency that the Consolidated Commission of the Federal Agency for Water Resources used the existing body of law and business practice to devise the tender documentation and evaluate the bids.

Under Part 1 Article 22 of the Law, the tender documentation must be devised by the Ordering Party, the authorized body and a specialized organization, and must be approved by them.

Having heard the case, the Moscow Arbitration Court dismissed the claim of the Federal Agency for Water Resources in full.