Single-Source Procurement of State-Owned Companies in Russia

 

September 25, 2024

BRACE ©

 

Single-source procurement remains one of the most problematic areas in applying Federal Law No. 223-FZ dated July 18, 2011, On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities (the "Law No. 223-FZ", "223-FZ", or the "Law on Procurement").

Compared to Federal Law No. 44-FZ dated April 5, 2013, On the Contract System in the Sphere of Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services for Ensuring State and Municipal Needs (the "Law No. 44-FZ"), procurement legislation under 223-FZ grants the Customer significantly more freedom. This is clearly reflected in the lack of strict regulatory oversight for contracts concluded without competitive procedures (the "single-source procurement", "single-source contract", or "procurement from a sole supplier"). Unlike Law No. 44-FZ, which contains an exhaustive list of grounds for such procurements along with requirements for concluding and performing these contracts, Law No. 223-FZ dedicates only a single article to single-source procurement.

This situation leads some Customers to abuse their granted freedom by applying single-source procurement arbitrarily to avoid lengthy and complex competitive procedures. Other Customers, sincerely wishing to comply with the Law on Procurement, may misinterpret it and face fines, injunctions, or other penalties. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that official government guidance on single-source procurement under 223-FZ is limited to abstract concepts such as "competition," "market development," "openness," and "fairness." In practice, every Customer must adapt these abstract categories to the realities of their business operations.

This article examines single-source procurement from several perspectives:

• the definition of single-source procurement;
• the differences between single-source procurement and other non-competitive procedures;
• the specifics of single-source contracts concluded with small businesses;
• the characteristics a contract must possess to be awarded to a sole supplier without violating the law;
• price limits and criteria for single-source procurement;
• disclosure requirements for the Customer (including whether such procurements must be entered into the EIS, the Register of Contracts, the procurement plan, and reporting);
• liability for the unlawful conclusion of a single-source contract.

What is Single-Source Procurement?

Customers operating under 223-FZ must clearly understand the terms "sole supplier" and "single-source procurement." Correctly applying this type of contract is essential for effective procurement, as it helps the Customer avoid legal violations and reduces the risk of claims from the antimonopoly authorities or interested parties. The proper use of single-source procurement is closely linked to the goals and objectives of Law No. 223-FZ.

The Law on Procurement was enacted in 2011 to regulate the expenditure of certain legal entities that were not state customers and did not conclude state contracts. The legislative initiative aimed to maintain healthy market competition and limit corruption. Law No. 223-FZ mandated that Customers within its scope should not conclude expenditure contracts directly based on subjective factors but instead select counterparties through open, competitive procedures. Essentially, this law serves as a "light version" of Law No. 44-FZ.

The main objectives of Law No. 223-FZ include (Part 1, Article 1 of Law No. 223-FZ):

• timely and full satisfaction of the Customer's needs for goods, works, and services with the necessary price, quality, and reliability;
• efficient use of the Customer's funds;
• expanding opportunities for legal entities and individuals to participate in procurement;
• stimulating potential counterparties to participate in procurements;
• developing fair competition;
• publicity and transparency in procurement;
• prevention of corruption and other abuses.

The principles of procurement under 223-FZ are listed in Part 1, Article 3 of the Law:

• information transparency;
• "equality, fairness, absence of discrimination and unjustified restrictions on competition toward procurement bidders";
• targeted and efficient spending of the Customer's funds;
• a ban on restricting access to procurement by establishing unfair, unmeasurable requirements for bidders. This means requirements must be clear, unambiguous, and justified.

The Law emphasizes the development of competition through the procurement process. Accordingly, all procurements under 223-FZ are divided into two main categories: competitive and non-competitive (Part 2, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ).

Competitive procurement (the "competitive procurement" or "tendering") implies the presence of several potential bidders and a degree of contestability between them. The main features of competitive procurement are (Part 3, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ):

• information about the procurement is posted in the Unified Information System (the "EIS") (except for closed procurements where invitations are sent to specific bidders);
• bidders "compete" by submitting bids and proposals;
• the subject of procurement must be formulated in accordance with the requirements established by law.

Competitive procurement can be conducted using various methods specified in Part 3.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ:

• tendering (open contest, electronic contest, closed contest);
• auctions (open auction, electronic auction, closed auction);
• Requests for Quotations (electronic RFQ, closed RFQ);
• Requests for Proposals (electronic RFP, closed RFP);
• other methods if provided for in the Procurement Regulation.

The definition of non-competitive procurement in Law No. 223-FZ is very concise: it is a procurement whose conditions differ from those of a competitive procurement (Parts 2 and 3.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ). In other words, a non-competitive procurement is any procurement that does not meet the legal criteria for a competitive procedure. The Ministry of Finance of Russia clarified that to recognize a procurement as non-competitive (regardless of its name or the form of bid submission), it must differ from tendering across all three criteria, namely: [1]

• information about the non-competitive procurement is not posted in the EIS and is not sent to potential bidders (in closed procurement);
• there is no competition between bidders;
• the subject of the non-competitive procurement is formulated without complying with the requirements mandatory for competitive procurement.

Law No. 223-FZ explicitly mentions only one type of non-competitive procurement: single-source procurement. Other methods of non-competitive procurement are not listed in the Law, but the Law allows for their existence as the Customer may independently define them in its Procurement Regulation (Part 3.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ).

Thus, single-source procurement is characterized by the following distinctive features:

• it is non-competitive. There is no contestability as only one bidder is involved (who becomes the counterparty to the contract);
• the Customer does not send proposals to multiple bidders and does not publish its proposal to conclude a contract;
• the subject of procurement can be formulated without complying with the requirements of Law No. 223-FZ.

It is important to understand that non-competitive procurement and single-source procurement are not always synonymous. Non-competitive procurement is a broader concept because it can be carried out not only as single-source procurement but also by other methods. For example, a variety of non-competitive procurement is the so-called "off-the-shelf procurement" (the "off-the-shelf procurement"), which is not a single-source procurement. This type of procurement serves as a clear example that non-competitive procurement is not always a single-source contract.

Features of Single-Source Procurement with Small Businesses and the Difference from "Off-the-Shelf Procurement"

Law No. 223-FZ includes a mechanism to support small and medium-sized enterprises (the "SMEs" or "small businesses"). Customers must ensure that contracts with SMEs account for at least 25% of their total annual procurement volume. Of this, 20% of procurements must be conducted through competitive procedures where only small businesses are allowed to bid. This means SMEs can participate in regular procurements on equal terms with other bidders and, in addition, participate in procurements organized exclusively for small businesses (the "special procurements" or "SME procurements"). Special procurements must be conducted according to special rules established in Article 3.4 of Law No. 223-FZ and Decree of the Government of Russia No. 1352 dated December 11, 2014, On the Specifics of Participation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities (the "Decree No. 1352").

The Customer may conclude contracts with SMEs through tendering or other methods (Para. 4 of Decree No. 1352). The Ministry of Finance of Russia clarified that such procurements can be conducted using competitive or non-competitive methods.[2] However, as of July 1, 2022, a new development appeared in procurement legislation: a non-competitive procurement in electronic form in which only small businesses may participate (Para. 20(1) of Decree No. 1352). This new type of special procurement does not have a formal legal term but is referred to in business and legal practice as "off-the-shelf procurement."

Off-the-shelf procurement is conducted in electronic form on an electronic platform that meets specific requirements. The price of such a contract must not exceed 20 million rubles. The procurement process works on the principle of an automatic search in the system for proposals that match the Customer's request. To do this, the SME places its preliminary proposal for a good, work, or service on the electronic platform. The Customer, in turn, publishes its request for a good, work, or service on the electronic platform. The platform operator searches for bidders' proposals that match the Customer's request. The Customer then determines the counterparty with whom the contract is concluded through the electronic platform according to its evaluation criteria. This procedure is very convenient for both parties; it is fast, allowing the Customer to find the necessary product and conclude a contract within 1 – 2 days.

Despite having multiple participants, off-the-shelf procurement is categorized as non-competitive. Unlike regular tendering, the protocol following such a procurement does not have to be published, and the description of the goods does not need to strictly comply with the requirements of Law No. 223-FZ. However, since off-the-shelf procurement assumes several participants and contains an element of contestability, it is not a single-source procurement.

Customers working under 223-FZ often face a problem: can a contract concluded with a sole supplier outside of competitive procedures and without an off-the-shelf procurement be counted toward the regulatory volume of special procurements if that supplier is an SME? This issue has been repeatedly considered by the Ministry of Finance, antimonopoly authorities, and in judicial practice.

In 2018, the Ministry of Finance issued a letter clarifying that since Law No. 223-FZ grants the Customer freedom to define non-competitive procurement methods in its Regulation, the Customer has the right to carry out SME procurements in the form of a single-source contract.[3] However, the Ministry's position later changed fundamentally. In 2023 and 2024, new clarifications were issued detailing the procurement methods that may count toward the annual volume of procurements reserved for SMEs:[4]

• competitive electronic procurement on a specialized electronic platform where only small businesses may participate;
• non-competitive procurement conducted in accordance with Para. 20(1) of Decree No. 1352 (i.e., off-the-shelf procurement);
• non-competitive procurement involving several participants from among SMEs.

As we can see, single-source procurement is absent from this list. The antimonopoly authorities supported this position, confirming that a Customer cannot fulfill its annual SME procurement quota by concluding contracts with a small business as a sole supplier. FAS Russia indicated that when calculating the annual volume of special procurements, single-source procurements that were not placed in an "electronic store" or on trading platforms cannot be taken into account.[5]

In 2024, FAS Russia issued clarifications stating that SME procurements can be conducted in the form of any non-competitive procurement, provided it is carried out in electronic form on an electronic platform. Essentially, this clarification implies off-the-shelf procurement and excludes single-source contracts from the list of possible special procurement methods.[6] Since legal practice tends to apply off-the-shelf procurement rules to any non-competitive special procurement, Customers are recommended to fulfill their annual SME procurement volume either through tendering or in a non-competitive form through an electronic platform to avoid risks.

Thus, in the sphere of small business procurement, single-source procurement has the following features:

• an SME can be a sole supplier under a contract, but the Customer processes such a contract as a regular procurement and does not count it toward the annual volume of SME procurements;
• off-the-shelf procurement is recognized as a non-competitive type of procurement, but it assumes multiple participants and is not a single-source procurement;
• special procurements can be conducted competitively or non-competitively. A non-competitive special procurement (like a competitive one) is carried out in electronic form on a specialized electronic platform and involves multiple participants. Therefore, a single-source contract does not belong to the category of special SME procurements.

By What Criteria Should One Determine Which Procurement Can Be Awarded to a Sole Supplier?

Law No. 223-FZ provides Customers with maximum freedom regarding single-source procurement. The regulatory oversight for this type of procurement is reduced to a single article, which states: "The procedure for preparing and carrying out procurement from a sole supplier (contractor) and the exhaustive list of cases for such procurement are established by the Procurement Regulation" (Article 3.6 of Law No. 223-FZ). In other words, the Customer independently develops and formalizes in its Procurement Regulation the types of contracts that may be concluded in the form of single-source procurement.[7]

The Ministry of Finance noted that the legal framework of Law No. 223-FZ provides for high independence of the Customer, especially regarding non-competitive procurements.[8] The Ministry of Economic Development emphasized that the norms of 223-FZ "are based on the principle of the Customer's freedom to choose the procurement method."[9] However, this excessive freedom proved deceptive, as the lack of strict regulatory boundaries creates a risk of errors and legal violations. Not every organization is capable of properly assessing its need for single-source procurement. Furthermore, not every Customer will voluntarily forgo single-source procurement when an alternative—conducting tendering—is available, especially if a specific counterparty is preferred for certain reasons. Following the adoption of Law No. 223-FZ, many organizations implemented a flawed practice: taking advantage of legislative freedom, they included all possible types of contracts in their list of single-source procurements. This allowed them to formally comply with their Procurement Regulation without conducting lengthy and complex competitive procedures. The result was a facade of compliance with a law that was, in substance, violated, as openness, competition, and market development were fundamentally absent.

Over years of practice under Law No. 223-FZ, judicial and antimonopoly authorities have developed basic principles that all Customers must follow when drafting the list of grounds for single-source procurement.

First, Para. 9 of the Review of Judicial Practice on Issues Related to the Application of Federal Law No. 223-FZ dated July 18, 2011, On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities lists situations where single-source procurement is appropriate:

• if the market for the given good, work, or service has low competition;
• if conducting tendering is impractical for objective reasons (e.g., emergency relief or force majeure events);
• if a single-source contract can be concluded following a failed competitive procurement procedure.

Second, in 2021, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed a series of identical precedents regarding single-source procurements. Based on the results, the Court developed criteria for assessing the legality of single-source procurements and established the following basic principles:[10]

• single-source procurement cannot be used for all cases regardless of whether a competitive market exists. If the Procurement Regulation allows the Customer to conclude a single-source contract for any reason, it is unlawful as it leads to discrimination and restriction of competition;
• the Customer must have reasonable and objective grounds for concluding a single-source contract;
• single-source procurement is permitted when tendering is clearly inefficient (e.g., if the commodity market is limited or prices fluctuate within a narrow range);
• single-source procurement is possible if tendering significantly deprives the Customer of the result it expected when planning the procurement (e.g., urgent order placement or procurement in a market dominated by unfair competition).

Concluding a single-source contract in violation of these principles may be regarded as an abuse of right and a deliberate evasion of competitive procedures.

Third, FAS Russia has indicated that an unjustified single-source procurement may be deemed an anti-competitive agreement.[11] The Customer must have evidence of the economic and production necessity for such a procurement, specifically justifying the urgent need for the goods. If potential competition exists for the right to conclude a contract, a Customer that concludes a single-source contract without sufficient grounds restricts the rights and violates the interests of other market participants.

Fourth, the Ministry of Finance expressed its position on single-source procurement criteria in uniform explanatory letters. The list of single-source procurements must be determined by the nature of the Customer's business activities and must correspond to its goals and needs.[12]

These acts and clarifications currently serve as the basis for legal practice in resolving disputes related to the justification of single-source procurement.[13] Judicial and antimonopoly authorities note that grounds for single-source procurement must be necessitated by the nature of the good, work, or service, or by the exclusivity of its performance by a single counterparty.[14] If the list of single-source procurements in the Procurement Regulation covers almost the entire scope of the Customer's activities without any restrictions or criteria, it is viewed as discrimination and a restriction of competition.[15]

When developing the list of procurements that may be conducted as single-source, the Customer should carefully analyze each type of contract for compliance with the listed criteria. If there is even the slightest possibility of conducting tendering, or if there is doubt about whether to include a contract in the single-source list, it is better to opt for competitive procurement.

Are There Price Limits for Single-Source Contracts?

The Law on Procurement does not establish any limits on the price of single-source procurements or the total monetary volume of such procurements. Theoretically, a single-source contract can be concluded for any amount, and the permissible quantity and total value of such contracts in the Customer's overall procurement volume are not regulated. This undoubtedly creates fertile ground for various abuses.

Typically, Customers set a price threshold in their Procurement Regulation that allows any contract to be awarded to a sole supplier regardless of its subject or nature, provided it does not exceed a certain amount. This condition serves as an independent ground for single-source procurement.

Sometimes this price threshold is so high that it allows the Customer to conclude an unlimited number of single-source contracts, covering a large part of the organization's business. Such conditions are considered a violation of the principles of 223-FZ.

However, most Customers adhere to the price limit established in 223-FZ for so-called "small-scale procurements". These are procurements with a value not exceeding 100,000 rubles (or 500,000 rubles for Customers with an annual revenue exceeding 5 billion rubles) (the "small-scale procurements"). Formally, such procurements are not non-competitive by default—theoretically, they could be conducted using competitive methods. However, the Law allows the information about small-scale procurements to remain undisclosed in the EIS, and data on such contracts does not need to be entered into the Register of Contracts (Part 15, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ). Consequently, Customers almost universally use the small-scale procurement price limit as a criterion for concluding single-source contracts regardless of the circumstances.

This has given rise to a phenomenon known in legal practice as "procurement splitting" or "contract splitting": instead of concluding one large contract, the Customer concludes several separate, identical contracts for smaller amounts with the supplier, thereby gaining the ability to process them as single-source procurements.

Distinctive signs of procurement splitting:

• the contracts are concluded with a single counterparty;
• the subject of the contracts is identical (e.g., purchasing similar products or ordering identical works);
• the contracts are concluded within a short period (i.e., short intervals between dates);
• the terms of such contracts are identical in content.

Antimonopoly authorities carefully monitor facts of procurement splitting during audits, as it allows the Customer to artificially create a facade of formal compliance with Law No. 223-FZ while evading competitive procedures.[16]

Contract splitting may be deemed a violation of both procurement and antimonopoly legislation. By its actions, the Customer provides preferential terms to specific economic entities bypassing tendering, thereby depriving potential bidders of their right to participate. This leads to a restriction of market competition. Therefore, antimonopoly authorities may initiate a case against such a Customer for violating Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law No. 135-FZ"):

• under Part 1, Article 17 of Law No. 135-FZ for actions that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition;[17]
• under Part 4, Article 11 of Law No. 135-FZ for concluding an anti-competitive agreement.[18]

Furthermore, the Prosecutor's Office actively challenges contracts with signs of splitting. Upon a prosecutor's claim in the public interest, such transactions may be declared invalid (void).[19]

The Law on Procurement establishes neither a maximum total volume for procurements under 100,000 rubles nor a maximum total volume for single-source procurements relative to the overall procurement volume. The Ministry of Economic Development notes that while there is no ban on the number of small-scale procurements, Customers should not abuse this opportunity.[20] Consequently, some organizations set their own maximum limits for small-scale procurements as a percentage of their total annual procurement volume.

Undoubtedly, the total number of single-source contracts should not dominate the Customer's overall procurement volume. This contradicts the principles of competition, transparency, and anti-corruption. Thus, the Customer should maintain a balance between competitive procurements and single-source procurements.[21]

Since 2018, government bodies have begun setting such ratios for subordinate Customers in Model Procurement Regulations, though there is still no uniform approach even in model documents. For example, for state institutions and enterprises in the Moscow Region operating under a model regulation, the permissible limit for single-source procurement is 50% of the total annual volume, including contracts up to 600,000 rubles, which may not exceed 10%.[22] In 2023, an arbitration court in the Krasnoyarsk Territory also supported an antimonopoly authority's order to set a Customer's maximum annual percentage for single-source procurement at 50%.[23]

In St. Petersburg, the model regulation sets more complex price criteria for single-source contracts. Contracts up to 600,000 rubles collectively must not exceed 2 million rubles per year or 5% of the annual volume (but within 100 million rubles). A single-source procurement up to 3 million rubles is allowed if the Customer's annual revenue exceeds 5 billion rubles, but the total value of such contracts must not exceed 5% of all procurements and no more than 300 million rubles.[24]

Within the structure of Russian Post, single-source contracts (regardless of ground) may be concluded at the management headquarters for up to 500,000 rubles and collectively no more than 50 million rubles per quarter; in structural subdivisions, the limit is up to 200,000 rubles and collectively no more than 7 million rubles per quarter.[25]

Thus, uniform price limits and percentage ratios for single-source procurement have not yet been established for all. Customers subject to Model Procurement Regulations must follow the price criteria fixed in those documents. All other Customers may establish price criteria for single-source procurement independently, keeping the following points in mind:

• it is advisable for the Customer to align with the regulatory price limits for small-scale procurements: 100,000 rubles for Customers with an annual revenue of less than 5 billion rubles and 500,000 rubles for large Customers;
• ideally, the ratio of small-scale procurements to the total volume should not exceed 10-15%; otherwise, suspicions of contract splitting may arise;
• it is undesirable for the total volume of single-source procurement to exceed 50% of the total volume.

Grounds for Single-Source Procurement

Law No. 223-FZ does not list specific situations or examples where single-source procurement is permissible. Each Customer independently drafts and approves a list in its Procurement Regulation that specifies the exact cases, situations, or types of transactions that allow for a single-source contract.

Drafting correct grounds for single-source procurement has always been an acute problem for Customers. It is in this list that abstract legal categories like "competition," "market development," "openness," and "fairness" collide with the practical realities of business. Any unforeseen or complex industrial or business situation may require the immediate conclusion of a contract. Therefore, the Customer faces the difficult task of anticipating all its potential needs for single-source contracts and reflecting them in the Regulation without violating the principles of 223-FZ or provoking the regulatory authorities.

Since 2018, so-called "Model Procurement Regulations" (the "Model Regulations") have been introduced into the sphere of 223-FZ procurement (Parts 2.1–2.7, Article 2 of Law No. 223-FZ). Model Regulations are intended for a specific category of Customers: budgetary institutions, autonomous institutions, and unitary enterprises. These Model Regulations are drafted and approved by the owners or founders of these Customers, i.e., government bodies. This development has both simplified and complicated the use of single-source procurement. On one hand, the Customer is deprived of freedom in choosing the grounds for a single-source contract. On the other hand, all liability for the unlawful content of the approved single-source list lies not with the Customer, but with the author of the Model Regulation.

The work on Model Regulations varies significantly across regions and agencies; there is no uniformity yet, and implementation is gradual. For example, in some regions, the Model Regulation is not yet applied by all Customers listed in Part 2.1, Article 2 of the Law on Procurement. At the federal level, Model Regulations for subordinate organizations are approved by industry ministries. In the regions, a basic Model Regulation may be developed by a local authorized body, and the owners of state institutions and enterprises implement it for their subordinate Customers (for example, in St. Petersburg, the Model Regulation is prepared by the Committee for State Financial Control of St. Petersburg).

There is also no uniform approach to forming single-source procurement lists in Model Regulations. Some owners compile a universal list from which Customers then select positions corresponding to their industry specifics. In other cases, the owner fixes a mandatory single-source list in the Model Regulation, but each Customer may add separate items upon agreement with the owner.

Below are situations that objectively serve as grounds for single-source procurement. These grounds can be called universal, as they appear in almost all Model Regulations and can thus be used by the Customer as a basic list:

• the subject of procurement falls under natural monopolies;
• water supply, wastewater disposal, heat supply, sewerage, gas supply services (except liquefied gas), and connection to these networks;
• municipal solid waste management services;
• power supply from a "guaranteed supplier";
• management of a multi-apartment building owned by the Customer;
• professional training, retraining, and advanced training for employees;
• mobilization preparation works;
• author's supervision in construction, reconstruction, or capital repairs;
• if the supplier can only be one person endowed with the relevant exclusive powers;
• if the supplier holds exclusive rights to the good, work, or service and no equivalent replacement exists;
• purchasing works of literature or art for the Customer's needs;
• teaching services provided by individuals;
• state secret protection services;
• purchasing tickets for entertainment, cultural, and educational events;
• purchasing Russian software from the developer;[26]
• contracts related to the purchase or lease of buildings, structures, or land plots when single-source procurement is objectively necessary (e.g., leasing a state land plot under a building transferred to the Customer for "economic management");
• participation in events (seminars, conferences, forums);
• a contract with an electronic platform operator for conducting tendering;
• if the procurement is necessitated by a natural or man-made emergency, accident, or unforeseen circumstances.

Financial and banking services such as account opening and maintenance, loans, and bank guarantees deserve special mention. Many Model Regulations include these in the single-source list. However, in practice, Customers wishing to avoid risk tend to put procurements for loans or letters of credit out to tender whenever possible. Therefore, if a Customer operates under a Model Regulation, it can safely conduct such a procurement as single-source if permitted. If the Customer is not subject to a Model Regulation, it is recommended to award contracts that involve a broad market and high value (e.g., obtaining a bank loan) through competitive procedures.

Many departmental Model Regulations include industry-specific grounds. For instance, the Model Regulation of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia provides for single-source procurement of reagents, chemicals, culture media, microorganism strains, test systems, and consumables for R&D (e.g., test tubes, cuvettes, racks, Petri dishes). It also allows single-source procurement of seeds, planting materials, crops, fertilizers, and chemicals.[27] The Model Regulation of Russian Post provides for single-source procurements to organize the transportation of mail by air and rail.[28]

Is it Possible to Exclude Single-Source Procurement from the Procurement Plan?

The plan for the procurement of goods, works, or services (the "procurement plan" or "Plan") is an integral part of the procurement information system (Part 2, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ). Requirements for creating the Plan are fixed in Decree of the Government of the RF No. 932 dated September 17, 2012, On Approval of the Rules for Forming a Plan for the Procurement of Goods (Works, Services) and the Requirements for the Form of Such a Plan (the "Decree No. 932"), and the procedure for entering it into the EIS is regulated by Decree of the Government of Russia No. 908 dated September 10, 2012, On Approval of the Regulation on the Placement in the Unified Information System... of the Procurement Regulation, Model Procurement Regulation, and Procurement Information (the "Decree No. 908").

Customers must post the procurement plan in the EIS for a period of at least one year (Part 2, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ; Para. 2 of Decree No. 932). If a procurement is not entered into the Plan in a timely manner, the Customer has no right to conclude a contract (Part 5.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ). An exception is procurement necessitated by an emergency (e.g., an accident or force majeure) where urgent medical intervention is required or a threat of such situations must be prevented. In this case, the Customer may conclude the contract before including the procurement in the Plan and fulfill the formal procedures for Plan entry and EIS posting later (Part 5.1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ).

However, the Law provides other exceptions where a procurement either must not be included in the Plan or may be excluded at the Customer's discretion (Para. 4 of Decree No. 932).

A procurement is not subject to entry into the Plan:

• if the procurement information is a state secret;
• if the procurement is conducted as part of a state defense order for the creation, modernization, supply, repair, maintenance, and disposal of weapons, military, and special equipment, as well as the development, production, and supply of space technology and infrastructure.

Additionally, the Customer may, at its discretion, decide not to include the following categories of procurements in the Plan:

• if the procurement cost does not exceed 100,000 rubles (or 500,000 rubles for Customers with an annual revenue exceeding 5 billion rubles);
• if the subject of procurement consists of financial services typically provided by credit organizations (attracting deposits, loans, trust management, bank guarantees and suretyships, account opening and maintenance, brokerage, and depository services);
• if the procurement is related to the conclusion and performance of a contract for the transfer of rights of ownership or use of real estate (e.g., a sale and purchase agreement, lease, or trust management of state property).

The Customer must post the procurement plan in the EIS within 10 calendar days after approval, but in any case no later than December 31 of the current year (Para. 14 of Decree No. 908). If changes are made to the Plan, they must also be posted in the EIS within the specified period. The Customer can form a structured procurement plan using the EIS functionality or publish an electronic version of the Plan. The Customer may also post a graphical image of the Plan (Paras. 15 and 16 of Decree No. 908).

Thus, the Law contains no exceptions or special rules regarding the inclusion of a single-source contract in the procurement plan. Therefore, Customers must follow the general norms of 223-FZ, Decree No. 932, and Decree No. 908.

Is it Necessary to Publish Procurement Documentation for Single-Source Procurement in the EIS?

Information transparency in procurement involves more than just forming a procurement plan. In addition to plans, the Customer must post numerous other documents in the EIS accompanying the procurement process (Part 5, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ):

• Notice of Procurement;
• Procurement Documentation;
• the draft contract as part of the Notice of Procurement;
• clarifications to the Procurement Documentation (if any);
• amendments to the Notice and Documentation (if any);
• interim and final protocols;
• other additional information (if provided for in the Customer's Procurement Regulation).

However, all this information is mandatory only for competitive procurements. Since single-source procurement is non-competitive, the Customer has the right not to post these details and documents in the EIS. This rule is permissive. That is, if it chooses, the Customer may state in its Procurement Regulation that information on single-source procurements must be entered into the EIS.[29] If the Customer imposes this obligation upon itself, it must apply to all single-source procurements without exception. One cannot specify that some single-source procurements must be entered into the EIS while others do not (e.g., based on the subject of the contract or the amount). The Customer either discloses all single-source procurements in the EIS or discloses none at all.[30]

In deciding whether to enter single-source procurement information into the EIS, the Customer should independently determine exactly which documents and materials must be posted.[31] One may follow the analogy of competitive procurements and provide for the mandatory publication of a full set of documents, including the Notice, Procurement Documentation, draft contract, and protocol. Alternatively, one could limit the disclosure to specific documents, such as only the Notice, only the Documentation, or only the draft contract. It is important to remember that under Decree No. 908, the Notice, Documentation, and draft contract are published simultaneously (Para. 22 of Decree No. 908).

If the Customer decides to post information about single-source procurement in the EIS, it is advisable to provide in the Regulation for the need to publish a notice of cancellation. As a model, one can use the rules in Para. 31 of Decree No. 908: the cancellation document should contain the date the decision was made and the grounds for the decision.

The Customer also independently determines and formalizes in the Regulation the procedure for drafting a single-source procurement protocol.[32] However, if such a protocol is provided for, the regulatory deadlines for posting it in the EIS must be observed: no later than three days after signing (Part 12, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ).

It should be noted that certain categories of procurements are not to be posted in the EIS regardless of whether they are competitive or non-competitive (Part 15, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ):

• if the procurement information is a state secret;
• if the procurement is part of a state defense order (creation, modernization, supply, repair, maintenance, and disposal of weapons, military, and special equipment; development, production, and supply of space technology and infrastructure).

Is it Mandatory to Enter Information on Single-Source Contracts into the Register of Contracts?

Following a procurement, details of the concluded contracts are entered into the Register of Contracts (the "Register of Contracts" or "Register") (Article 4.1 of Law No. 223-FZ). The Register is formed using the EIS functionality and is part of that information system. The Register is maintained by the Treasury of Russia based on information that Customers are obliged to submit. The rules for forming the Register are defined by Decree of the Government of Russia No. 1132 dated October 31, 2014, On the Procedure for Maintaining the Register of Contracts Concluded by Customers Based on Procurement Results (the "Decree No. 1132").

The Law contains no special conditions or exceptions for single-source contracts regarding the Register. Therefore, Customers must follow general rules and enter single-source contract information into the Register within the established timeframes (Part 2, Article 4.1 of Law No. 223-FZ):[33]

• information on the conclusion of the contract is entered into the Register within 3 business days of its conclusion (Subpara. "a", Para. 10 of Decree No. 1132);
• information on the amendment, performance, or termination of the contract is entered into the Register within 10 days (Subpara. "v", Para. 10 of Decree No. 1132).

An exception is made for categories of procurements that are not to be entered into the EIS, as they are also excluded from the Register of Contracts (Para. 3 of Decree No. 1132). These include procurements involving state secrets and state defense orders.

For small-scale procurements, a relief norm applies. If the contract price does not exceed 100,000 rubles (or 500,000 rubles for large Customers), the contract does not need to be entered into the Register. This is a uniform rule that applies to both competitive procurements and non-competitive single-source contracts. However, if desired, the Customer can state in its Regulation that even small-scale procurements must be entered into the Register. Thus, information on a small-scale single-source contract may be entirely absent from the EIS and the Register of Contracts.

Is it Necessary to Reflect Single-Source Procurement in Reporting?

Monthly reporting is another element of procurement information transparency. The Customer must post information in the EIS no later than the 10th day of the month following the reporting month regarding the number and value of contracts concluded in that month, including single-source contracts (Part 19, Article 4 of Law No. 223-FZ; Paras. 45 and 45(1) of Decree No. 908).

Reporting information on concluded contracts that must be displayed in the EIS by law is formed automatically by the 1st day of the month following the reporting month. The Customer's task is to populate the report with details of procurements that were not posted in the EIS for various reasons. Each type of procurement in the reporting table is assigned a special "contract conclusion case code"; for single-source procurement, this is code number 220 (Para. 45(5) of Decree No. 908). Thus, even if a single-source procurement is not posted in the EIS, information on the contract must appear in the reporting.

Liability for Violations in Single-Source Procurement

The liability of a Customer related to single-source procurement can be divided into two categories.

The first type of liability involves administrative fines for violating procedural requirements related to information transparency, i.e., posting information in the EIS and the Register of Contracts. As noted, for single-source procurements, Customers must timely post the following information:

• entry of the procurement plan into the EIS (which must include single-source procurements);
• entry of information on the conclusion, amendment, performance, and termination of contracts into the Register of Contracts (this includes single-source contracts);
• posting monthly reports in the EIS on the number and value of concluded contracts (including single-source contracts).

For violating these requirements, the Customer is liable under Article 7.32.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "CAO RF"):

• if the Customer fails to post the required information, a fine is imposed on the official in the amount of 30,000 to 50,000 rubles and on the legal entity in the amount of 100,000 to 300,000 rubles (Part 5, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF);
• if the Customer posts information late, the fine for officials is 2,000 to 5,000 rubles and for legal entities is 10,000 to 30,000 rubles (Part 4, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF).

The second type of liability concerns cases where a Customer applies the single-source procurement method without sufficient grounds. this situation is more complex, as the CAO RF does not explicitly provide an administrative penalty for the unlawful conclusion of a contract specifically with a sole supplier.

Undoubtedly, arbitrary single-source procurements contradict the requirements of Law No. 135-FZ. Part 1, Article 17 of that Law states: "During the conduct of tendering, Requests for Quotations... and Requests for Proposals, actions that lead or may lead to the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition are prohibited." The abuse of single-source procurement is viewed as an abuse of right and creates unfair competition.[34]

However, in 2021, the Supreme Court of the RF established a rule: if a Customer concludes a contract with a sole supplier that formally complies with that Customer's Procurement Regulation (i.e., the Regulation includes grounds for such a procurement as single-source), the contract does not constitute a violation of Article 17 of Law No. 135-FZ (Para. 37 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts).[35]

But this does not mean the Customer cannot be held liable.

First, Part 1, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF establishes a fine for violating the procurement form when it should have been conducted in electronic or another form. Antimonopoly authorities apply this norm to a Customer that concluded a single-source contract when it should have conducted a competitive procedure according to its Regulation. If the reason for conducting the procurement as single-source is not included in the Customer's list of single-source grounds and is not fixed in the Regulation, the single-source contract is considered unjustified, and the procurement form is deemed not observed. Since the Customer is fined for conducting a procurement that does not comply with its own Regulation, such a penalty does not contradict Para. 37 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 2.

Antimonopoly authorities emphasize that such actions by Customers deprive other market participants of their right to participate on a competitive basis and place them at a disadvantage compared to the sole supplier. Therefore, such situations are viewed as an incorrect choice of supplier determination method in violation of Part 1, Article 17 of Law No. 135-FZ and Part 1, Article 2 and Part 1, Article 3 of Law No. 223-FZ.[36]

The fine for carrying out a single-source procurement that contradicts the Customer's Procurement Regulation is 10,000 to 30,000 rubles for officials and 100,000 to 300,000 rubles for legal entities (Part 1, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF).

It should be noted that this violation is not considered "insignificant," so Article 2.9 of the CAO RF will not help the Customer avoid a fine.

According to Article 2.9 of the CAO RF, in case of an insignificant offense, the person may be released from punishment, which is replaced by an oral warning. An offense is considered insignificant if it formally contains signs of a violation, but the scale of the harm and the severity of the consequences do not pose a substantial threat to protected public relations.[37] The difficult financial situation of the organization and the voluntary elimination of the consequences of the violation cannot be qualified as insignificance.

Some Customers try to justify the insignificance of single-source procurement by various circumstances, such as the absence of claims from interested parties, the absence of grave consequences, or no harm to the interests of society and the state. However, antimonopoly authorities reject such arguments. The offense under Part 1, Article 7.32.3 is formal, meaning liability arises from the very fact of violating procurement legislation regardless of whether an unfavorable result occurred. FAS Russia notes that by its nature, this offense is significant, as the failure to observe the procurement form demonstrates the Customer's disregard for its public legal duties.[38]

Therefore, a Customer cannot be released from a fine even in cases where the procurement price is small, there are no third-party claims or complaints, and the conclusion of the single-source contract led to no negative consequences.

Second, liability is provided for unlawful grounds for single-source procurement fixed in the Customer's Regulation. In August 2024, FAS Russia issued an explanatory letter stating that the terms of the Procurement Regulation regarding the list of possible single-source procurements are subject to critical evaluation by the antimonopoly authority.[39] If a Customer approved grounds for single-source procurement in its Regulation arbitrarily and without compelling reasons, it is considered a restriction of competition and a violation of Part 1, Article 17 of Law No. 135-FZ. In this case, the antimonopoly authority has the right to issue an order to eliminate violations and amend the Regulation, and the Customer must remove the unlawful condition. The letter emphasizes: if a single-source procurement at the time it was made formally complied with the requirements of the Procurement Regulation (even if that Regulation was later found unlawful), such a single-source contract is not considered a violation of antimonopoly legislation.

Third, a single-source contract concluded in violation of the principles of 223-FZ may be declared invalid (void) in a judicial proceeding.

Part 2, Article 168 of the Civil Code of the RF (the "Civil Code") recognizes a transaction that violates legal requirements and encroaches on public interests or the rights and legally protected interests of third parties as void. Courts view single-source contracts concluded without sufficient grounds or in violation of the Procurement Regulation as a direct violation of Law No. 223-FZ. Disregarding competitive procurement methods violates the rights of an indefinite circle of third parties — potential bidders — leading to discrimination and a restriction of competition.

If a court declares such a contract void, the Customer and the counterparty must apply the consequences of its invalidity, meaning the parties must return what was performed to each other or compensate for its value (for example, if a delivery took place, the Customer returns the goods to the supplier, and the supplier returns the paid money) (Para. 2, Article 167 of the Civil Code). Since an unlawful single-source procurement by default violates the interests of an unlimited circle of persons and encroaches on the public interest, the consequences of its invalidity can be applied not only at the request of a party to the contract or an interested person but also at the court's own initiative (Paras. 3 and 4, Article 166 of the Civil Code).

It should be noted that a single-source contract can also be declared void if it formally complied with the Procurement Regulation, but the Regulation itself was illegitimate at the time the contract was concluded (e.g., it was not published in the EIS or was approved by an unauthorized person).

The following parties have the right to file a claim in court to declare a single-source contract invalid:

• antimonopoly authorities (usually based on a complaint from an interested party);[40]
• a party to the contract (the Customer or supplier), as well as other interested parties or one of the parties jointly with an interested party (Para. 3, Article 166 of the Civil Code);[41]
• the Prosecutor via a claim in the public interest.[42] The Prosecutor is entitled to apply to the court or intervene in a case at any stage of the process if necessary to protect the legally protected interests of society or the state.[43] Additionally, the Prosecutor may apply to an arbitration court under Part 1, Article 52 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to declare transactions invalid by organizations that fall under the scope of 223-FZ.

Fourth, a single-source contract can be regarded as an anti-competitive agreement.[44] Part 4, Article 11 of Law No. 135-FZ prohibits agreements that restrict competition, including those that prevent economic entities from accessing the commodity market. It should be kept in mind that not every unjustified single-source contract qualifies as an anti-competitive agreement. Article 11 of Law No. 135-FZ implies a negative impact of the contract on the competitive market, meaning the state of the market and the position of participants must be considered, along with how such an agreement affected competition in a specific market.[45]

If a single-source contract is found to be an anti-competitive agreement in accordance with Part 4, Article 11 of Law No. 135-FZ, a fine may be imposed on the Customer under Part 4, Article 14.32 of the CAO RF:

• on the official: 15,000 to 30,000 rubles;
• on the legal entity: 0.01% to 0.05% of the revenue from the sale of the good, work, or service (for the supplier) or of the expenses for their acquisition (for the Customer), but not less than 100,000 rubles. If the specified revenue or expenses account for more than 75% of the violator's total revenue or if prices for the subject of the contract are state-regulated, the fine is 0.002% to 0.02% of the violator's revenue in the market where the contract was made, but not less than 50,000 rubles.

Thus, if a Customer commits violations during single-source procurements, the following measures may be applied:

• administrative fines for failure to post or late posting of the procurement plan, contract reporting, or information on the conclusion, amendment, performance, or termination of the contract (Parts 4 and 5, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF);
• an administrative fine for concluding a single-source contract if such a contract does not comply with or contradicts the terms of the Customer's Procurement Regulation (Part 1, Article 7.32.3 of the CAO RF);
• an order from the antimonopoly authority to amend the Procurement Regulation if it contains unlawful grounds for single-source procurement;
• declaring the single-source contract void by a court decision;
• declaring the single-source contract an anti-competitive agreement and an administrative fine under Part 4, Article 14.32 of the CAO RF.

Final Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, a single-source contract is an effective procurement tool, but it can only simplify the Customer's business life if used skillfully. If a Customer applies this procurement method arbitrarily and without control, failing to observe the principles of 223-FZ, it risks attracting interest from the antimonopoly authorities or the Prosecutor's Office.

Customers are offered several simple recommendations for working with single-source procurement:

• A Customer not subject to Model Regulations should be especially careful in developing the list of grounds for single-source procurement. Every item in this list must be weighted and justified, and every situation should be analyzed for the possibility of conducting tendering. Remember: single-source procurement is permitted only when no other suppliers exist in the market or when the situation is of an exceptional nature;
• A Customer operating under a Model Regulation should attempt to agree with the supervising government body on the inclusion of additional single-source grounds in the model list, taking into account the industry specifics of the Customer's activities;
• When concluding a single-source contract, check the procurement for compliance with all conditions fixed in the Procurement Regulation;
• The price criterion is an independent ground for single-source procurement. The Regulation should establish a maximum amount within which any contract may be concluded as single-source regardless of its subject or purpose. If the Customer is in doubt and wishes to avoid risk, the small-scale procurement volumes established in Law No. 223-FZ can be used as this criterion;
• Control the ratio of the single-source procurement volume to the total volume of competitive procurements: competitive procurements should prevail;
• Do not conclude several identical contracts with the same counterparty within a limited period. Similar single-source procurements should be combined into a single contract to avoid accusations of procurement splitting;
• If the sole supplier is also an SME, such a contract does not belong to the category of special procurements and is not included in the annual volume of procurements conducted for SMEs;
• Timely enter information into the EIS regarding planned single-source procurements, the conclusion, amendment, performance, and termination of single-source contracts, and post reporting on concluded contracts. The requirements of 223-FZ regarding the disclosure of this information apply to single-source procurements;
• Preparing and posting accompanying documentation for single-source procurement (e.g., a notice or protocol) in the EIS is not mandatory. However, for every single-source contract, it is highly desirable to prepare a written justification in advance, reflecting the reasons and necessity for choosing this procurement method with references to specific points in the Procurement Regulation.

__________________________________

References

[1] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-05-08/96208 dated December 28, 2018.

[2] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-09/94110 dated November 22, 2021.

[3] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-05-09/88660 dated December 6, 2018.

[4] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-07-08/52488 dated June 7, 2023; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-07-08/6256 dated January 26, 2024.

[5] Resolution of the Novosibirsk OFAS Russia No. 054/04/7.32.3-69/2024 dated January 31, 2024; Resolution of the Novosibirsk OFAS Russia No. 054/04/7.32.3-75/2024 dated January 31, 2024; Resolution of the Novosibirsk OFAS Russia No. 054/04/7.32.3-89/2024 dated February 1, 2024.

[6] Letter of FAS Russia No. 28/5643/24 dated January 26, 2024.

[7] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-05-08/55826 dated June 29, 2020; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-08/15282 dated March 2, 2020.

[8] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-08/84391 dated September 25, 2020.

[9] Letters of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia No. OG-D28-2586 dated March 6, 2017; No. D28i-1491 dated June 15, 2016.

[10] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES21-11589 dated September 16, 2021; Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES21-13581 in Case No. A57-6788/2020 dated September 16, 2021; Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES21-13429 in Case No. A57-6544/2020 dated September 16, 2021.

[11] Para. 7 of the Review of the Practice of Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Collegiate Bodies of FAS Russia (for the period from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019).

[12] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-05-08/2131 dated January 17, 2020; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-08/55767 dated June 29, 2020; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-07/53330 dated June 19, 2020.

[13] Letter of FAS Russia No. PI/99723/23 dated November 27, 2023.

[14] Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-3558/2021 in Case No. A04-7496/2020 dated August 20, 2021.

[15] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 302-ES21-5479 in Case No. A19-8951/2020 dated May 14, 2021; Decree of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-5023/2022 in Case No. A75-13727/2021 dated September 29, 2022; Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-3558/2021 in Case No. A04-7496/2020 dated August 20, 2021; Decision of the Vladimir OFAS Russia dated December 1, 2023 in Case No. 033/01/17-788/2023.

[16] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 304-ES22-5628 in Case No. A46-7489/2021 dated May 13, 2022.

[17] Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-9442/19 in Case No. A50-9971/2019 dated January 31, 2020.

[18] Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District No. F01-12745/2020 in Case No. A38-6943/2019 dated September 21, 2020.

[19] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 309-ES23-4117 in Case No. A60-14051/2022 dated April 19, 2023; Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 305-ES19-24282 in Case No. A41-65906/2018 dated January 9, 2020.

[20] Letter of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia No. D28i-205 dated February 11, 2015.

[21] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-07/28730 dated April 19, 2019.

[22] Para. 60.2 of the Model Procurement Regulation approved by Order of the Moscow Region Committee for Competition Policy No. 29-01-23/21 dated June 11, 2021.

[23] Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory dated January 23, 2023 in Case No. A33-25370/2022.

[24] Para. 38.1.1. of the Model Procurement Regulation... approved by Order of the St. Petersburg Committee for State Financial Control No. 1-r dated April 12, 2021.

[25] Subpara. 34, Para. 3.4.3.5. of the Regulation on the Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services for the Needs of JSC "Russian Post" approved by the Board of Directors of JSC "Russian Post" (Protocol No. 12-2023 dated August 7, 2023).

[26] Joint Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-00-07/22259, Ministry of Digital Development of Russia No. SK-P11-22106, and FAS Russia No. PI/20386/24 dated March 13, 2024, On the Procurement by Certain Types of Legal Entities of Russian Software from its Developer as a Sole Supplier (Contractor).

[27] Subparas. 5, 39 of Section 2 of the Model Procurement Regulation... for the Needs of Budgetary Institutions, Autonomous Institutions, and Unitary Enterprises Subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia No. 275 dated March 30, 2022.

[28] Subparas. 23, 24, Para. 3.4.3.5. of the Regulation on the Procurement... for the Needs of JSC "Russian Post" approved by the Board of Directors of JSC "Russian Post" (Protocol No. 12-2023 dated August 7, 2023).

[29] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-08/75934 dated August 28, 2020.

[30] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-04-05/3393 dated January 23, 2019.

[31] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-07-07/87691 dated September 9, 2022.

[32] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 24-07-07/54924 dated June 9, 2022.

[33] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 304-AD18-15839 in Case No. A67-10542/2017 dated October 16, 2018.

[34] Letter of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia No. D28i-1224 dated March 13, 2017.

[35] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 305-ES22-76 dated April 26, 2022.

[36] Resolution of the Tatarstan OFAS Russia dated March 22, 2024 in Case No. 016/04/7.32.3-287/2024; Decision of the Astrakhan OFAS Russia No. 030/07/3-830/2024 dated August 9, 2024; Decision of the Sverdlovsk OFAS Russia dated September 25, 2023 on Complaint No. 066/01/18.1-3288/2023; Resolution of the Altai Territory OFAS Russia dated July 19, 2023 in Case No. 022/04/7.32.3-748/2023; Resolution of the Moscow OFAS Russia dated November 24, 2022 in Case No. 077/04/7.32.3-16367/2022.

[37] Para. 21 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 5 dated March 24, 2005, On Certain Issues Arising for Courts in Applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

[38] Resolution of the Tatarstan OFAS Russia No. AR-04/6630 dated July 6, 2024.

[39] Letter of FAS Russia No. MSh/75011/24 dated August 21, 2024, On the Possibility of Evaluating the Actions of Customers in Establishing Grounds for Single-Source Procurement in Competitive Markets in the Procurement Regulation for Compliance with Article 17 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ....

[40] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 310-ES22-9352 in Case No. A83-4743/2021 dated June 23, 2022.

[41] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 305-ES21-7840 in Case No. A41-45073/2020 dated June 4, 2021; Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 307-ES18-7021(2) in Case No. A42-8542/2016 dated July 23, 2019; Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 303-ES17-13280 in Case No. A51-21115/2015 dated September 27, 2017.

[42] Decree of the Fourteenth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 14AP-8846/2023 in Case No. A13-2444/2023 dated January 23, 2024; Decree of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-17481/2023 in Case No. A56-125508/2022 dated December 21, 2023; Decree of the Eighteenth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 18AP-8340/2023 in Case No. A47-21175/2022 dated August 7, 2023.

[43] Article 35 of Federal Law No. 2202-1 dated January 17, 1992, On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation.

[44] Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-15740/2020 in Case No. A40-298165/2019 dated March 22, 2022.

[45] Para. 27 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antimonopoly Legislation by Courts.