Mosmetro refused to accept from the developer a ready-made system for the Treasury

2022: Refusal to accept a ready-made system for the Treasury

The Russian IT- the company EttonGroup"" in the courts of three instances proved the illegality of the actions of the State Unitary Enterprise Moscow Metro"." Etton announced this on July 4, 2022.

In June 2019, the Moscow Metro State Unitary Enterprise signed an agreement with EttonGroup LLC to create an automated metro treasury system. The performer for almost a year, as was spelled out in the contract, performed the work at his own expense, because the contract did not provide for an advance. Due to the fact that Mosmetro shifted the timing of the first stage, acceptance tests and trial operation of the system (2nd and 3rd stages, respectively) coincided with the self-isolation regime introduced in the spring of 2020 in connection with the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, referring to the pandemic, the customer did not accept the system within the required time frame, although he repeatedly promised that he would organize it.

Despite this, the developer of the system provided Mosmetro with a ready-made automated treasury information system, which he refused to accept. Having received the system, Mosmetro unilaterally refused to fulfill the contract and did not pay for the work. Not limiting itself to this, the contracting organization recovered the penalty using the contractor's bank guarantee, and also applied to the OFAS with a statement about the inclusion of EttonGroup LLC in the register of unscrupulous suppliers.

The Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in Moscow did not include the contractor in the register. Moreover, the department confirmed that Mosmetro thwarted the deadlines at the first stage, when it delayed the acceptance of work. Because of this, the timing of the subsequent stages has shifted, and the final work coincided with the beginning of the pandemic. Thus, the full performance of work under the contract was impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor, while the fault of the customer is that he did not provide proper assistance in a difficult situation. The courts also declared Mosmetro's unilateral refusal to fulfill the contract illegal and recovered payment for the work performed in favor of the Contractor, as well as lost profits.