Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Audit Service’s conclusion regarding a violation of the procurement tender procedure.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Regarding occupational safety certification: The court recognized that the chief engineer’s documents fully comply with the tender documentation requirements.
– Regarding bank guarantee:
The court established that:
– The bank guarantee meets all necessary requirements
– A separate guarantee agreement is not mandatory
– Reference to the basic banking service agreement is legitimate
3. Court Decision: The claim of the Capital Construction Department was fully satisfied. The State Audit Service’s conclusion was deemed unfounded.
4. Key Conclusion: The State Audit Service unreasonably demanded termination of the contract with the tender winner.
Decision in favor of the procurement customer.
