The court ordered the ICT structure of the Federal Penitentiary FSIN to pay for domestic servers that were not accepted under the 200 million state contract

2022: Court order to pay for domestic servers

On July 11, 2022, it became known that the main center of engineering and technical support and communications of the Federal Penitentiary Service (SCITOiS FSIN) he would have to accept the government contract. the Russian servers Earlier, the organization unilaterally terminated the contract with the supplier due to the fact that the servers had improved technical characteristics compared to those prescribed in the terms of reference.

The decision to oblige GCITOiS to accept Iron was made by the Moscow Arbitration Court in a lawsuit against the center dated January 17, 2022 by the rejected supplier, National Technologies. It is 51% owned by the Avtomatika concern, which is part of Rostec, and 49% by the Data Storage Center controlled by Rostelecom. In full, the decision of the servants of Themis was made on July 6, 2022.

The conflict situation concerns 12 Yadro Vegman S220 servers included in the register of Russian equipment under the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Equipment under the brand name Yadro ("Core") is produced by the company "KNS Group," which was at the origins of the grievor's business. Initially, she owned 49% of the share of National Technologies, then her presence decreased to 24.5%, and at the end of July 2019 it completely came to naught.

The contract of GCITOiS FSIN with National Technologies was signed on September 27, 2021 following a tender with an initial maximum price of 214.7 million rubles. The offer of the winner of the electronic auction amounted to 211.4 million rubles. One company not named in public documents unsuccessfully tried to compete with him. The delivery of "iron" was supposed to be completed in January 2022.

As a result of the trial, GCITOS needs not only to pay the supplier for the servers, but also to return to him the withheld amount of the contract security of 21.5 million rubles, as well as transfer 7 million rubles to his account. as a penalty.

At the time of publication of this material, there was no information about National Technologies in the register of unscrupulous suppliers, in which the FAS may include a company that has lost a state contract.

As follows from the documents of the proceedings, the problem servers were transferred to the customer on December 1, 2021, which is confirmed by the delivery note and invoice. Two weeks later, on December 15, the customer prepared an expert opinion, according to which the goods did not meet the quality and technical characteristics.

After that, on December 21, the supplier sent a letter to the customer with a notification of the elimination of shortcomings and the readiness to undergo a second examination, as well as with a proposal to make changes to the contract that improve a number of technical characteristics of the product. On December 22, having received the "go-ahead" of the customer, the parties entered into an additional agreement to the contract, under which they agreed to improve the terms of the SOW.

However, already on December 28, the customer prepared an expert opinion, according to which shortcomings were identified in the product (previously not announced to the supplier, not noted in the first expert opinion, as well as not provided for by the TA), and the product was re-recognized as not corresponding to qualitative and technical characteristics.

The FSIN Service sent a notice of unilateral refusal to fulfill the contract to GCITOiS to National Technologies on December 29, 2021.

During the proceedings on the supplier's claim on April 29, 2022, the court appointed a forensic technical examination of the goods. Based on its results, a conclusion was obtained according to which the Yadro Vegman S220 server "does not fully comply with the requirements of the SOW and the contract," but at the same time "the revealed discrepancy is not significant and is an improvement."

According to the judges, the defendant, objecting to the results of the examination and evidence that the conclusion does not meet the principles of relevance and admissibility, did not present. The defendant did not declare a petition for appointment in the case of repeated forensic examination in accordance with the procedure established by law. The customer did not prove that the identified inconsistencies can affect the performance and quality characteristics of the product.

At the same time, the defendant's objections to the unacceptability of improvements in the technical characteristics of the supplied goods were not confirmed by any evidence, the judges noted. - The Respondent indicated that the delivered goods are subject to further inspection and admission to work by the relevant authorities; meanwhile, he did not provide any evidence, including the normative one established in the specified part. How did not provide evidence that the terms of the contract and its TOR supplier were notified that the characteristics stated in the contract were unconditional and excluding the supply of goods with improved technical characteristics[1].

Notes