Legal Procurement Agreements

Previously, PPL 54 included exceptions for direct allocation on the basis of exceptions, i.e. direct purchase without advertising. As a result of the changes made in December 2018, it now has 50. In addition to the removal of some, the amendments added a new exception and broadened the scope of at least two exceptions. With regard to the value of purchases, the main exception that has just been removed was purchases on the president`s proposal. Faster: Framework agreements make it unnecessary for adjudicator powers to launch full tenders or to conduct lengthy supplier evaluations. This saves time and reduces the cost of buying exercises. The amendments made in December 2018 are intended to create bid requirements for Bid Bonds. The amount of the bid obligation is equal to that of public auctions and auctions (1%). In addition, the e-procurement system automatically excludes offers if the total amount of the loan has not been paid. In fact, the loan must be paid via an electronic wallet on the electronic purchasing system.

Currently, it is up to the tendering committee to exclude bids without bid requirements, which would save the bidding committee time. Both measures will come into effect in January 2020 and 2019 and come into force as a transition year. The guarantees in purchase agreements will very often be broad enough that it is often impossible for a delivery to comply with them. For example, a guarantee that a delivery component is free of errors and errors may be virtually impossible, as the software usually has defects and defects, so the provider must specify that such errors and defects must be essential and affect the functionality of services and products before the warranty is breached. The same adjudicating entities apply to a guarantee that the services and products comply with the specifications at all times. [2] Eurasian Economic Union (2015), Eurasian Economic Union Treaty (Section 22 “Public Markets (Local) ” and Annex 25), updated For the buyer, it is a strategic mistake to end contract negotiations to the end, because he moves from negotiating a position of strength to negotiating a weak position. Worse still, without an alternative to the traditional procedure, public procurement specialists could decide to circumvent the intervention of lawyers and seek an agreement at the purely “commercial” level. (This is absurd, of course, because no contractual agreement can be purely “commercial” as opposed to “legal.”) As a result, this type of “angle cutting” and “prevention” only creates risks and uncertainties.