OREANDA-NEWS. On November 11, 2008 the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court, Moscow, confirmed the legitimacy of the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service regarding the Federal Water Resources Agency, reported the press-centre of FAS Russia.

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

FAS Russia received a complaint of "MEDTECHSTROI" Ltd. against the actions of the Federal Water Resources Agency in an open tender for the servicing intrusion detection and fire alarm systems, automatic fire-extinguishing installation, TV systems, CCTV, 3-programme radio broadcasting, transmitting and locating, structured cable system in 2008.

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

The complaint was proclaimed justified in the part that the tender documentation and the Protocol of Bids Evaluation and Comparison had not specified the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison for pre-qualification.

Under Part 7 Article 65 of the Law "On State Procurement", the Ordering Party must specify statutory criteria, their content and weight in the tender documentation. The Section "Informational Map" of the tender documentation set the criteria for bids evaluation, and minimum and maximum scores to be allocated under each criterion. However, the tender documentation did not specify the procedures for allocating the scores under each criterion, which violated Part 7 Article 65 of the Law.

Under Part 10 Article 28 of the Law, the Tender Commission fills the Bids Evaluation and Comparisons Protocol for Bids Pre-Qualification; the Protocol must contain information on the location, date and time of the bids evaluation and comparison, etc.

However, the Bids Evaluation and Comparisons Protocol for Bids Pre-Qualification did not contain the procedures for bids evaluation and comparison, which violated Part 10 Article 28 of the Law.

The Federal Water Resources Agency approached the Moscow Arbitration Court and then the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court. The Court completely dismissed the claim of the Federal Water Resources Agency.