To bookmarks

Finance navigator

Join VKontakte
home Deposits Audit in the field of procurement under Federal Law 223. Mandatory audit. Fines for failure to purchase electronically

Audit in the field of procurement under Federal Law 223. Mandatory audit. Fines for failure to purchase electronically

Now we are receiving many questions regarding the procurement of audit services by organizations that have the status of a customer in accordance with the Federal Law of July 18, 2011 No. 223-FZ “On the procurement of goods, works, services of certain types legal entities"(hereinafter referred to as the Procurement Law).

We asked Doctor of Law, leading research fellow Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, Olga Belyaeva.

A few words about the history of all customer doubts

In accordance with clause 7, part 4, article 1 of the Procurement Law, relations related to the customer’s selection of an audit organization to conduct a mandatory audit of the customer’s accounting (financial) statements in accordance with art. 5 of the Federal Law of December 30, 2008 No. 307-FZ “On Auditing Activities” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Auditing Activities).

A literal interpretation of this norm leads, in my opinion, to the conclusion that all relations regarding the customer’s choice of a counterparty for conducting a mandatory audit are excluded from the scope of Law No. 223-FZ. However, there is now an opinion among many lawyers that this provision should be interpreted restrictively for the following reasons.

By itself Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing consists of several parts:

  • the first part contains a list of cases in which a mandatory audit is required;
  • the second part establishes the period for conducting a mandatory audit - annually,
  • the third part lists organizations whose mandatory audit of their statements is carried out only by audit organizations,
  • the fourth part requires the conclusion of an agreement by some organizations only based on the results of an open competition held in the manner established by Federal Law No. 94-FZ of July 21, 2005 “On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs” (hereinafter - Ordering Law).

Thus, the “selection of an audit organization” (namely, this wording is contained in clause 7, part 4, article 1 of the Procurement Law) is discussed only in part 4 of art. 5 of the Law on Auditing. It follows that only those relations that are related to the selection of an audit organization according to the rules of the Procurement Law are excluded from the scope of the Procurement Law.

An additional argument in favor of the fact that the norm of clause 7, part 4, art. 1 of the Procurement Law does not apply to all organizations listed in Part 1 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing, is an indication of the selection of audit organizations, and not just the selection of an auditor. After all, it is audit organizations that conduct mandatory audits of organizations named in Part 4 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing.

Based on the above considerations, many experts believe that the goal of the legislator when introducing an exception regarding the selection of an auditor into the Procurement Law was to avoid a conflict with the provisions of the Procurement Law; and it is unlikely that the legislator intended in this way to exclude a conflict with the norms of corporate legislation.

A different understanding of the analyzed norm of the Procurement Law will mean that the procedure for purchasing services when conducting a mandatory or proactive audit, as well as when involving an individual auditor or audit organization, will be radically different, which does not meet the goals of the Procurement Law. In addition, representatives of government bodies, in particular the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, call the Procurement Law “the law on information transparency of expenses,” noting that this is its main focus.

FAS Russia, in a letter dated December 24, 2012 No. IA/44025/12, notes that if certain types of customer purchases are not regulated by approved and posted on the official website legal acts (legal acts) establishing procurement rules, in relation to such purchases the provision on procurement is considered not placed in the manner established by the Procurement Law. Therefore, when carrying out such procurements, the customer must be guided by the provisions of the Procurement Law. In other words, if relations for the selection of an audit organization are removed from the scope of the procurement regulation, and government bodies consider that these relations are nevertheless within the scope of the Procurement Law, it turns out that the procurement regulation covers the issue of selecting an auditor (audit firm). organization) is not regulated. Thus, when concluding an agreement with an auditor (audit organization), the customer will have to be guided by the norms of the Law on Placement of Orders.

How should Law No. 223-FZ be adequately interpreted?

All of the above reminds me of the Russian proverb: “After being burned on milk, they blow on water.” It is paradoxical, but even a direct indication in the Procurement Law that the scope of its action
does not include the selection of an audit organization, does not convince customers that they can limit themselves to compliance with their corporate procedures. Let's figure out how to adequately interpret the norms under consideration; adequately means closest to their literal meaning.

So, is the customer obliged to select an audit organization in accordance with the procedures established by the Procurement Law? Will the exclusion of the rules on the selection of an audit organization from the procurement regulations of the customer lead to the need to be guided by the norms of the Law on the placement of orders?

Relations that are not regulated by the Procurement Law and, accordingly, to which there is no reason to apply the procurement regulation itself, are listed in Part 4 of Art. 1 of the Procurement Law, their list is closed, there is no basis for its broad interpretation.

The above rule provides for eight exceptions from the scope of regulation of the Procurement Law, and it is worth noting that it is impossible to bring them to a common denominator - it is not clear what idea of ​​the legislator underlies these exceptions, since we are talking about different legal relations.

In the first case, the basis for the seizure is the object of the contract (securities and currency values), in the second - the specifics of the transactions concluded (stock market), in the third - the specifics legal status the customer, guided in his activities by the provisions of the Law on Placement of Orders, in the fourth - a special field of activity (military-technical cooperation), in the fifth - the priority of international law over national legislation; in the sixth case, the withdrawal is due to the type of service provided - a mandatory audit of the customer’s accounting (financial) statements, carried out by audit organizations in accordance with Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing.

The last two exceptions are combined cases where both the subjects and the relationships in which they participate come together (conclusion and execution of contracts in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on the electric power industry, which are mandatory for subjects of the wholesale market - participants in the circulation of electrical energy and (or) power; implementation credit institution leasing transactions and interbank transactions, incl. with foreign banks).

The specialization of norms, the difference in their nature and purpose in regulation predetermine the fact that individual norms have divergent parts; there is no single, universal model of structure characteristic of all legal norms. So, the norm sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law is blanket, since its disposition refers to an article of another normative legal act.

A rule of law and an article of a normative legal act are not identical to each other; they may or may not coincide. A rule of law is a rule of behavior, and an article of a legislative act is a form of expression of state will, a means of implementing a rule of law. The rule of law, being the content, correlates differently with the article of the normative act, which acts as its form.

In Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing Activities simultaneously includes several legal norms, the connecting link of which is the fact that they all relate to the conduct of a statutory audit:

  • the first part of the article defines the range of entities subject to mandatory audit;
  • in the second, the frequency of mandatory audits is indicated;
  • the third lists persons whose mandatory audit of accounting (financial) statements is carried out only by audit organizations;
  • the fourth names the persons who are obliged to conduct an open tender in accordance with the rules of the Law on the Placement of Orders in order to conclude an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit of accounting (financial) statements.

Blanket disposition sub. 7 hours 1 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law, although it mentions such concepts as “audit organization” and “selection”, does not refer to Part 3 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing (which deals with audit organizations) and not to Part 4 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing (which talks about concluding an agreement based on the results of an open competition, which could be correlated with the concept of “selection”), and to the entire article - without any exceptions.

The interpretation of such a disposition can be presented as follows: in Part 4 of Art. 1 of the Procurement Law establishes six exceptions from the scope of its regulation; it is necessary to analyze two of them in a systematic relationship - sub-clause. 3 and 7 of the given norm.

So, in sub. 3 hours 4 tbsp. 1 it is noted that the Procurement Law does not apply to relations related to the placement by the customer of orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services in accordance with the Law on Placement of Orders. Despite the use of the same term, the Procurement Law in Part 2 of Art. 1 and the Law on placing orders in Art. 4 regulate the activities of different customers.

Moreover, there are no points of contact between these customers, with some exceptions, when the customer, in the sense of the Procurement Law, is obliged to apply the Ordering Law in its activities.
Such exceptions under current legislation Russian Federation three:

  1. the customer did not approve and publish its procurement regulations on the official website (part 4 of article 8 of the Procurement Law);
  2. the customer is a federal state unitary enterprise to which the powers of the state customer are transferred in cases provided for by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 28, 2012 No. 1456 “On the procedure for implementation in 2013 budget investments to objects capital construction state property of the Russian Federation";
  3. the customer is a state company, state corporation, state unitary enterprise, business company, in the authorized capital of which the share of state participation is more than 50% percent, and enters into an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit of accounting ( financial statements) based on the results of an open competition held according to the rules of the Law on Placement of Orders (Part 4 of Article 5 of the Law on Auditing).

Thus, an open competition according to the rules of the Law on the placement of orders for concluding an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit of the customer’s accounting (financial) statements refers to the exemption established in subparagraph. 3 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law, and the blanket norm sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law has an independent and specific content: it refers to customers in general, that is, to all legal entities that are referred to in this way for the purposes of the Procurement Law. In other words, the norm of Part 4 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing activities corresponds to the norm sub. 3 hours 4 tbsp. 1, not sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law.

If we compare the circle of customers named in Part 2 of Art. 1 of the Procurement Law, with a list of persons whose mandatory audit must be carried out by audit organizations, given in Part 3 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing, it becomes obvious that they do not coincide. In particular, organizations whose securities are admitted to trading in organized trading, credit and insurance organizations, as well as non-state pension funds.

Another example: in the authorized capital of a business company there is a state share of 30%; such a company does not have the status of a customer in the sense of the Procurement Law, but is obliged to hold an open competition according to the rules of the Law on Procurement and has the right to allow only audit firms to participate in such a competition organizations. Similar examples Quite a lot more can be cited, all of them will demonstrate the discrepancy between the subject composition of persons, with whose status certain legal consequences are associated with three different regulatory legal acts: the Procurement Law, the Law on the Placement of Orders and the Law on Auditing.

With regard to the concept of “selection” mentioned in sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law, it is appropriate to refer to the so-called golden rule of interpretation. It is expressed in the fact that words and expressions used by law should be given their common, ordinary meaning. Selection is the selection of someone or something from any environment. Holding an open competition for the purpose of concluding an agreement is a type of selection, choosing a future counterparty.

However, the concepts of “competition” and “selection” are not identical to each other; selection is a much broader concept in its meaning, therefore the phrase “selection of an audit organization” cannot be reduced to holding a competition, another form of tendering, or another method of procurement.

conclusions

  1. Norm sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law establishes a general exception from the scope of the Procurement Law, relating to the activities of all customers listed in Part 2 of Art. 1 of the Procurement Law. There is no reason to believe that this norm applies selectively to any customers.
  2. The procedure for selecting an audit organization to conclude an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit of the accounting (financial) statements of an organization that has the status of a customer on the basis of Part 2 of Art. 1 of the Procurement Law and is the subject of a mandatory audit on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 5 of the Law on Auditing, is not subject to regulation in the procurement regulations.
  3. The opinion that the Procurement Law presupposes information openness of any expenditure obligations customers, is common in modern practice, but it is at odds with both the name and the text of the Procurement Law itself. The exception regarding the procedure for selecting an audit organization for the mandatory audit of accounting (financial) statements is clearly established in subparagraph. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law. As for possible legal conflicts with the provisions of the Law on Placement of Orders, another rule is aimed at eliminating them, namely sub-clause. 3 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law.
  4. The exclusion of the procedure for selecting an audit organization from the customer’s procurement regulations cannot oblige the customer to follow the provisions of the Procurement Law for two reasons:
    • such an exception is based on a direct provision of the Procurement Law itself;
    • The customer has no other grounds to apply the Ordering Law in its activities.
  5. On the procedure for concluding agreements for conducting proactive audits, as well as agreements concluded with auditors, and not with audit organizations, the norm is sub. 7 hours 4 tbsp. 1 of the Procurement Law does not apply.

Reform of legislation in the field of procurement within the framework of the Federal Law of July 18, 2011. No. 223-FZ “On the procurement of goods, works, services by certain types of legal entities”, Federal Law of 04/05/2013. No. 44-FZ “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” and the tightening of law enforcement practices of regulatory authorities are forcing organizations to take precautionary measures regarding violations of antimonopoly and “procurement” legislation. One of the tools for reducing risks for organizations is to conduct a procurement audit (inspection).

Auction Consulting LLC offers the service Audit (verification) of purchases: diagnosing and identifying problems, identifying risk areas.

Purpose"procurement audit" is to reduce the likelihood of violations and, as a consequence,
risk of sanctions (fines range from 3,000 to 300,000 rubles in accordance with Articles 7.29 - 7.32.3 of the Administrative Code).

Experts from Auction Consulting are recognized in the professional community as legal practitioners in the field of procurement. Each member of the expert team has confirmed qualifications, continuous long-term work experience in procurement of at least 10 years, experience in control and supervisory authorities and regulatory agencies. During the procurement audit (inspection), our specialists will carry out expert, analytical, information and other work by checking, analyzing and evaluating your organization’s procurement data. In its work, the Auction Consulting company guarantees quality and confidentiality. Based on the results of the procurement audit (inspection), the following is provided:

  1. detailed report;
  2. a list of recommendations for optimizing procurement activities, eliminating identified violations, minimizing the consequences of violations (risks) if they exist, consultations on taking measures to prevent them and suppress them in subsequent activities;
  3. conclusion.

Procurement audit - this is an examination by independent experts of the system for organizing the procurement activities of an institution, carried out in accordance with the legislation on the contract system, the legislation on procurement by certain categories of legal entities, the system of planning and control of procurement activities, resulting from the procurement activities of documentation, assessment of the personal potential of employees involved in the procurement process .

Audit of the institution’s procurement system for compliance with the requirements of 44-FZ/223-FZ

In-person audit:

  • Conducted at the customer's facility.
  • The lead time is from 5 to 10 working days.

The customer’s documentation and available resources are studied: EIS (http://zakupki.gov.ru), electronic trading platforms.

Price

from 90,000.00 rubles

Correspondence audit:

Carried out based on available resources:

  • united Information system http://zakupki.gov.ru,
  • electronic trading platforms used by the customer.

The duration is 5 working days.

Price

from 40,000.00 rubles

The audit report is issued within 5 calendar days. The report contains information about the state of the procurement system in the institution, violations, if any, are identified. The report will present the maximum cost of the organization's risks, expressed in rubles, as well as recommendations for eliminating violations or minimizing risks. In addition, the customer will receive organizational recommendations, if required.

Within 1 month from the date of diagnosis (audit), the necessary methodological assistance will be provided to bring the procurement system into compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

(“we’ll fix everything we can”)

Within 3 months, consultations on organizing procurement activities by phone and email

Carry out a new procurement, the obligatory form for which is an open competition.

Text of the joint letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation N 24-04-06/3691, Federal antimonopoly service Russian Federation No. RP/4072/18 dated January 24, 2018

MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

N 24-04-06/3691

FEDERAL ANTI-MONOPOLY SERVICE

N RP/4072/18

LETTER

ABOUT THE POSITION

MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF RUSSIA AND FAS RUSSIA ON ISSUES OF APPLICATION

"ON THE CONTRACT SYSTEM IN THE FIELD OF PURCHASING GOODS, WORKS,

SERVICES FOR PROVIDING STATE AND MUNICIPAL

WORKS, SERVICES BY SEPARATE TYPES OF LEGAL ENTITIES"

WHEN MAKING PURCHASES FOR THE PROVISION OF MANDATORY SERVICES

AUDIT OF ACCOUNTING (FINANCIAL) REPORTING

In connection with incoming questions about the application of the provisions of Federal Laws of April 5, 2013 N 44-FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs" (hereinafter referred to as Law N 44-FZ), dated 18 July 2011 N 223-FZ "On the procurement of goods, works, services by certain types of legal entities" (hereinafter - Law N 223-FZ) when making purchases for the provision of mandatory audit services of accounting (financial) statements (hereinafter - mandatory audit) Ministry of Finance Russia and the FAS Russia report the following.

1. On the issue of application of Law N 44-FZ and Law N 223-FZ by legal entities that purchase mandatory audit services in accordance with Federal Law of December 30, 2008 N 307-FZ “On Auditing Activities” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 307 -FZ).

Law N 223-FZ regulates procurement by a wide range of legal entities specified in Part 2 of Article 1 of this law. At the same time, in accordance with paragraphs 3, 7 of part 4 of article 1, Law N 223-FZ does not regulate relations related to:

procurement of goods, works, services in accordance with Law No. 44-FZ;

carrying out the selection of an audit organization to conduct a mandatory audit in accordance with Article 5 of Law No. 307-FZ.

Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ establishes cases of mandatory audit in relation to individual organizations.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit of the accounting (financial) statements of an organization in the authorized (share) capital of which the share of state ownership is at least 25 percent, as well as to conduct an audit of the accounting (financial) statements state corporation, state company, public law company, state unitary enterprise or municipal unitary enterprise is concluded based on the results of an open competition at least once every five years in the manner established by law Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement, goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs.

Thus, Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ contains an exhaustive list of certain types of legal entities that enter into an agreement to conduct a mandatory audit in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement. It should be taken into account that such legal entities, in cases established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, may be subject to regulation by Laws No. 44-FZ, No. 223-FZ.

Considering that paragraph 7 of part 4 of article 1 of Law N 223-FZ excludes from the scope of application of Law N 223-FZ only the selection of an audit organization carried out in accordance with Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the FAS Russia come to the following conclusions:

1) legal entities that are customers in accordance with Law N 223-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, select an audit organization to conduct a mandatory audit in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement;

2) legal entities that are customers in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law N 44-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, carry out procurement for the provision of mandatory audit services in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the contract system in procurement, including planning, procurement regulation, contract execution, procurement control;

3) legal entities that are customers in accordance with Law N 223-FZ, but not specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, carry out procurement for the provision of mandatory audit services in the manner established by Law N 223-FZ, the customer’s regulations on procurement

2. On the issue of selecting an audit organization by a legal entity that is a customer in accordance with Law No. 223-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law No. 307-FZ.

Law No. 44-FZ establishes different contents of the terms “purchase” and “definition of supplier (contractor, performer)”. The term “determining a supplier (contractor, performer)”, established by paragraph 2 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ, includes a set of actions that are carried out starting with the placement of a notice of procurement and ending with the conclusion of a contract - that is, they essentially involve the direct selection of a supplier (contractor, performer).

Considering that Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ establishes the obligation of the legal entities specified in this part to conclude an agreement in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement based on the results of an open competition, the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the FAS Russia believe that in in relation to such legal entities (with the exception of customers in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law N 44-FZ), the provisions of Law N 44-FZ apply exclusively in terms of determining the supplier (contractor, performer) through an open tender, as well as the relevant regulatory legal acts on contract system in the field of procurement. In this case, the provisions of Law No. 44-FZ regarding planning, rationing of purchases, and execution of concluded contracts are not subject to application.

1) Part 1 of Article 55 of Law N 44-FZ establishes cases in which a contract is concluded with a single supplier (contractor, performer) in accordance with paragraph 25 of Part 1 of Article 93 of Law N 44-FZ, which in turn provides for the approval of the conclusion of a contract with the relevant control body in the field of procurement, depending on the level of state and municipal needs provided;

3) Part 4 of Article 55 of Law N 44-FZ establishes cases in which procurement is subsequently carried out by conducting a request for proposals in accordance with paragraph 8 of Part 2 of Article 83 of Law N 44-FZ or otherwise in accordance with Law N 44-FZ.

Considering that Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ establishes the obligation of the legal entities specified in this part to enter into an agreement solely based on the results of an open competition, the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the FAS Russia believe that the legal entities specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ Federal Law (except for customers in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ of Law No. 44-FZ):

1) enter into a contract with a single supplier (contractor, performer) in the cases provided for in Part 1 of Article 55 of Law No. 44-FZ, in accordance with paragraph 25 of Part 1 of Article 93 of Law No. 44-FZ without agreement with the control body in the field of procurement, since Law No. 44-FZ does not provide for the implementation of the specified approval with such a control body by a person who is not a customer in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ;

2) do not apply the provisions of parts 2, 4 of Article 55 of Law No. 44-FZ in terms of conducting procurement in a way other than an open competition, in connection with the establishment by Law No. 307-FZ of the obligation to carry out procurement exclusively through an open competition;

3) do not apply the provisions of Part 4 of Article 55 of Law No. 44-FZ regarding the conduct of a request for proposals in connection with the above circumstance.

3. On the issue of procurement for the provision of mandatory audit services by a legal entity that is a customer in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law N 44-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ.

Federal Law No. 321-FZ of July 3, 2016 includes unitary enterprises among the customers who make purchases in accordance with Law No. 44-FZ (except for the cases established in Part 2.1 of Article 15 of Law No. 44-FZ). Thus, according to general rule Law No. 44-FZ regulates all relations specified in Part 1 of Article 1 of Law No. 44-FZ when making purchases by a unitary enterprise.

It should be noted that, according to Part 4 of Article 5 of Law No. 307-FZ, when concluding an agreement for the provision of mandatory audit services, establishing requirements for securing applications for participation in the competition and (or) for ensuring the execution of the contract is not mandatory.

However, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 2 of Law N 44-FZ, the rules of law contained in other federal laws and regulating relations specified in Part 1 of Article 1 of Law N 44-FZ must comply with Law N 44-FZ, which contains special requirements for securing applications, contract execution, their sizes.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia come to the conclusion that the customers specified in paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ, including unitary enterprises, when making purchases for the provision of mandatory audit services, apply the provisions of Law No. 44-FZ that establish the requirements to secure applications and contract execution.

4. On the issue of the procedure for appealing, as well as control over the actions (inaction) of legal entities purchasing statutory audit services.

Chapter 6 of Law No. 44-FZ establishes the procedure for appealing against actions (inaction) of subjects of control provided for by Law No. 44-FZ. Chapter 5 of Law No. 44-FZ establishes the content of subjects of control, types and grounds for control measures. The provisions of Chapters 5, 6 of Law No. 44-FZ apply to customers specified in paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law No. 44-FZ, since such customers are classified as subjects of control provided for by Law No. 44-FZ.

Part 10 of Article 3 of Law N 223-FZ establishes cases of appealing the actions (inaction) of the customer in the manner established by the antimonopoly authority. Article 18.1 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ of July 26, 2006 “On the Protection of Competition” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 135-FZ) establishes the procedure for the antimonopoly authority to consider complaints about violations of the bidding procedure, the conduct of which is mandatory in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Article 6 of Law No. 223-FZ establishes the content of control over compliance with Law No. 223-FZ.

Based system analysis provisions of these Federal Laws, the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the FAS of Russia come to the following conclusions:

1) appeals against actions (inaction) of legal entities that are customers in accordance with Law N 223-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ are carried out in the manner established by Article 18.1 of Law N 135-FZ for consideration by the antimonopoly authority of complaints for violation of the bidding procedure, the conduct of which is mandatory in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation (in particular, Law No. 307-FZ);

2) appeal, as well as control in relation to legal entities that are customers in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of Law N 44-FZ and specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, is carried out in the manner established by Chapters 6, 5 of Law N 44-FZ, respectively;

3) appeal, as well as control in relation to legal entities that are customers in accordance with Law N 223-FZ, but not specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, is carried out in accordance with Part 10 of Article 3, Article 6 of Law N 223-FZ;

4) appealing against actions (inaction) of legal entities that are not customers either in accordance with Law N 223-FZ, or in accordance with Law N 44-FZ, but specified in Part 4 of Article 5 of Law N 307-FZ, is carried out in the manner established by Article 18.1 of Law No. 135-FZ for the consideration by the antimonopoly authority of complaints about violations of the bidding procedure, the conduct of which is mandatory in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation (in particular, Law No. 307-FZ).

This letter is not a legal act and is for informational purposes only.

Deputy Minister of Finance

Russian Federation

A.M.LAVROV

Deputy Head

Federal Antimonopoly Service

R.A.PETROSYAN

We will tell you which companies must conduct a mandatory audit, about the mandatory audit of federal state unitary enterprises, about the mandatory audit of procurement under 223-FZ and the use of electronic digital signatures.

The problem of conducting a mandatory audit of accounting (financial) statements is familiar to most companies that conduct procurement under Federal Law 223 “On the procurement of goods, works, and services by certain types of legal entities.” In accordance with this law, the customer must purchase a mandatory accounting audit through an open tender within the framework of Federal Law 44-FZ.

Which companies must conduct mandatory audits?

So, as noted above, the choice of an auditing firm responsible for auditing accounting is outside the scope of Law 223-FZ. The selection of the company performing the audit is carried out in accordance with Federal Law No. 307-FZ.

To obtain full access to the PRO-GOSZAKAZ.RU portal, please register. It won't take more than a minute.

Select a social network for quick authorization on the portal:

In other cases regulated by federal law.

According to 307-FZ, mandatory audits must be carried out annually.

Mandatory audit of Federal State Unitary Enterprise Part 3 and part 4 of Article 5 of Federal Law 307-FZ indicates normative base

Federal State Unitary Enterprises, State Unitary Enterprises and Municipal Unitary Enterprises under 223-FZ can be carried out by one company for 5 years, under one agreement concluded in accordance with the norms of 44-FZ. Article 5, paragraph 4, establishes the following requirement: the procurement of a statutory audit must be carried out only through an open tender. The same clause provides the customer with the opportunity to install financial support

contract. This rule provides the customer with protection from unscrupulous performers.

Procurement audit according to 223-FZ

As mentioned above, in accordance with Law 44-FZ, it is necessary to carry out only the procedure itself, and the placement of a mandatory audit purchase must be carried out within the framework of 223-FZ. The same applies to the procurement report: if an organization operates within the legal framework of 223-FZ, then the report must be drawn up in accordance with 223-FZ. If an open competition is held to determine the contractor to conduct a mandatory audit under the law 223-FZ, and not 44-FZ, the customer faces an administrative fine of 15 to 30 thousand for officials.

Electronic digital signature

There are no less questions regarding electronic signatures for working within the framework of laws 44-FZ and 223-FZ. An electronic signature designed to work within the framework of 223-FZ is not suitable for working with 44-FZ. Therefore, to obtain an electronic digital signature, you must contact the Treasury. Read about how to obtain an electronic signature in the article.

Read the latest news and expert explanations on hot topics in the field of public procurement in magazine "Goszakupki.ru"

We recommend other articles

Convergence of RAS and IFRS: adaptation of Russian accounting to international standards

Convergence of RAS and IFRS: adaptation of Russian accounting to international standards

The investigation into the case of major embezzlement has been completed

The investigation into the case of major embezzlement has been completed