Extension of the energy supply contract 44 fz. Changing the terms of contract execution in government procurement

When performing state contracts, there are cases when the execution of work under a government contract cannot be completed on time due to the fault of the customer. Or due to mutual fault.

At the same time, the customer does not enter into a conflict with the contractor, does not want to charge him a penalty and agrees to conclude an additional agreement to the government contract with an increase in the deadlines for completing the work. At the same time, it is sometimes proposed to increase the estimate by 10% in order to have a reason to conclude an additional agreement. agreement.

Is such an increase in terms under a government contract legal?

As a general rule, no.

Is it possible to extend the deadlines without concluding an additional agreement and not paying a penalty to the government customer?

Federal Law No. 44 in Art. 95 contains an exclusive list of cases in which a state contract can be changed. The most common case is a price change of no more than 10% in the direction of increasing the estimate or reducing it due to a smaller volume of work.

However, the law does not indicate the possibility of increasing the terms if the contract price changes.

This is only possible in certain special cases:

The contract price is more than 500 million, 1 billion, 10 billion rubles for municipal needs, the needs of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, federal needs, and if the total term is state. contract more than 1 year for municipal and 3 years for federal needs

Changes in regulated prices

Reducing financing limits if the customer has entered into a contract with a foreign organization or citizen

In all other cases, it is impossible to conclude an additional agreement to increase the deadlines for completing work. Even if the customer agrees to it. Such an agreement is void, because limits competition and giving preference to an individual entity (clause 9 of the review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on public procurement)

But there is a way out that allows you to actually increase the deadlines for completing work under the state. contract.

It is based on the provisions of Art. 716, 719 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 9 of Art. 34 of Law No. 44-FZ..

In this case, you need to prove that the failure to complete the work within the period stipulated by the contract was due to the fault of the customer or due to unforeseen circumstances (weather conditions, accident, etc.).

The customer may violate the deadlines for handing over the construction site, fail to provide access to it, performing work under the contract requires other work not provided for in the contract, there may be errors in the design documentation, etc.

It is important that these circumstances could threaten the quality of work or, without eliminating them, it is impossible to fulfill the conditions of the state. contract.

The customer must be warned about such circumstances, otherwise you will not be able to refer to them in court if a claim is brought.

The customer is obliged to ensure the possibility of performing work at the site and to provide the necessary assistance to the contractor (Article 718 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

If they do not take the necessary actions, then you have no right to proceed with the work or suspend it until the circumstances interfering with the high-quality performance of the work are eliminated. (Articles 716, 719 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

If you properly formalize the suspension of work under a government contract, you will not violate the deadlines for completing the work, and the Customer does not have the right to terminate it or collect a penalty from you.

The conclusion and execution of state and municipal contracts are regulated by both civil law and procurement legislation. Moreover, the norms of special legislation are much more stringent than the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and leave practically no freedom for the parties to maneuver, for example, in the matter of changing the duration of the contract. Is there competition between these standards? And to what extent are they used? Arbitration practice provides answers to these questions.

As part of the implementation of the functions and powers established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, legislation adopted on its basis and international treaties, the Russian Federation, its constituent entities, municipalities and budgetary institutions have needs to receive goods, perform work, and provide services. These needs (needs) are satisfied by concluding relevant civil contracts based on the results of a special procedure - the purchase of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs.

Until January 1, 2014, the procurement procedure was regulated by the norms of the Federal Law of July 21, 2005 No. 94-FZ “On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 94-FZ). From this date, the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 44-FZ) came into force. It should be noted that the legal foundations of state regulation of relations related to the formation, features of placement and implementation of government contracts are also regulated by the norms of other laws.

Taking into account the fact that a state (municipal) contract (hereinafter referred to as the contract) is a civil law contract with a difference only in the subject composition and the purposes of the conclusion, the rules of civil law are applied to it, for example, those governing the terms of the contract.

Which norms are a priority?

According to Part 1 of Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, amendment and termination of the contract are possible by agreement of the parties, unless otherwise provided by this Code, other laws or the contract.

From the literal interpretation of this provision it follows that the parties to the contract have the right, by agreement, to change its terms, unless otherwise provided both by the contract itself and by legal norms. The terms of the contract may include, for example, the timing of the work or provision of services, the cost of the work, the start of the contract, the form of payment, various sanctions for violating the terms of the contract, etc.

At the same time, according to Part 2 of Art. 34 of Law No. 44-FZ, when concluding and executing a contract, changing its terms is not allowed, except for the cases provided for in this article and art. 95 of the said law. Since Art. 34 does not contain exceptions related to deadlines; let us turn to the provisions of Art. 95. It provides for only one case when the essential terms of the contract during its execution can be changed by agreement of the parties, related to the duration of the contract. This is a change in the essential terms of the contract in terms of the period for completing the work, which is allowed only by agreement of the parties in the cases provided for in clause 6 of Art. 161 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, when reducing the limits of budget obligations previously communicated to the state or municipal customer as a recipient of budget funds. At the same time, the state or municipal customer, during the execution of the contract, ensures the approval of new terms of the contract, including the deadlines for the execution of the contract (subclause 6, part 1, article 95 of Law No. 44-FZ). Moreover, the possibility of changing the terms of the contract must be provided for in the procurement documentation and the contract, and in the case of a purchase from a single supplier (contractor, performer) - in the contract.

Based on the principle of lex specialis derogate generali (a special law displaces a general one), it must be stated that the provisions of Law No. 44-FZ are of a special nature and have priority over the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This principle also applies to the previously in force Law No. 94-FZ.

Timing controversy: to be continued

Restrictions on changing the terms of the contract were also established by Law No. 94-FZ. In paragraph 5 of Art. 9 of this law contained a list of contract terms, changes to which were not allowed either by agreement of the parties or unilaterally. But there was no such condition as the duration of the contract in this list.

In other words, from the mentioned provisions of Law No. 94-FZ it did not directly follow that the duration of the contract or the period for fulfilling obligations under the contract (performance of work, provision of services, fulfillment of delivery obligations) is a condition that cannot be changed by agreement between the parties to the contract. And participants in contractual relations often made attempts to change the terms of the contract in terms of its validity period or the period for fulfilling obligations under the contract - by signing additional agreements under Art. 450 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Often such agreements or, conversely, the customer’s refusal to change the deadline became the subject of legal proceedings.

The resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated July 6, 2009 in case No. A11-4585/2008 notes the following. The case materials confirm that the defendant violated the deadline for completing the work, but the court of first instance made an erroneous conclusion that the parties extended the deadline for completing such work on the basis of an additional agreement. Changing the deadlines for completing work by agreement of the parties to the municipal contract contradicts the requirements of Law No. 94-FZ, therefore, this additional agreement is void by virtue of Art. 168 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

From the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District dated September 19, 2013 in case No. A49-7036/2012, it follows that changes to the contract in terms of the timing of work are prohibited by the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Law No. 94-FZ.

The resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated April 25, 2011 in case No. A40-81803/10 notes the following. In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 9 of Law No. 94-FZ, when concluding and executing a state or municipal contract, changing the terms of the contract specified in Part 3 of Art. 29 of the said law, by agreement of the parties and unilaterally is not allowed, except for the cases provided for in parts 6-6.6 and 8.1 of the mentioned article. The cases provided for by these norms were not established by the court of appeal, therefore the conclusion by the parties of an additional agreement in which the terms of the agreement were changed (the deadline for delivery of the subject of the agreement was changed) was correctly assessed as not complying with the law.

A change in the calendar plan for the execution and payment of work cannot be recognized as complying with Art. 708 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since the deadline for completing work, including interim, is an essential condition of the contract. In addition, the appellate court correctly concluded that the conclusion of the additional agreement entailed a change in the value of the contract, although it does not directly follow from the additional agreement that the cost originally agreed upon in the contract increased.

A similar legal approach is reflected in the decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District dated April 4, 2013 in case No. A08-2679/2012, the Volga District dated May 2, 2007 in case No. A57-5457/2006, and the Sixth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 17, 2013 in case No. A73 -713/2013.

It is worth paying attention to the letter of the Treasury of Russia dated June 19, 2012 No. 42-74-05/8.5-321 “On the prolongation of government contracts (agreements) concluded without competitive procedures with a single supplier (executor, contractor).” It follows from it that Art. 9 of Law No. 94-FZ does not provide for the possibility of changing the validity period (extension) of a government contract (agreement) concluded with a single supplier (performer, contractor).

Is it possible to change the validity period of the contract itself?

As a rule, arbitration courts come to the conclusion that changing the duration of the contract does not contradict the provisions of Law No. 94-FZ, unlike changing the deadlines for performing work (rendering services) under the contract.

Thus, the FAS of the Far Eastern District, in decisions dated December 24, 2010 No. F03-9093/2010 and No. F03-9094/2010, considered the verdicts of lower courts, which refused to recognize additional agreements to the government contract as invalid, to be legitimate. At the same time, the cassation court noted that, having interpreted the terms of the disputed clauses of the contract and additional agreement, the courts found that in fact the parties changed the duration of the contract, which does not contradict the provisions of Law No. 94-FZ, and not the period of provision of services (performance of work).

Another example of such an approach can be found in the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated January 30, 2013 in case No. A11-2361/2012. The court refused to invalidate the additional agreement to the government contract concluded between the customer and the contractor. Applying the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 of Art. 763, paragraph 1, art. 766 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Law No. 94-FZ, the court found that the contract determined its validity period, which does not apply to the essential terms of the contract. At the same time, the parties, by their expression of will, changed the specified provisions of the contract by signing a controversial additional agreement, which changed the validity period of the contract (and not the completion date of the work), which does not contradict the current legislation.

In some cases, the possibility of changing the term of a state (municipal) contract, if we are talking about a long-term contract, the courts make dependent on the allocation or non-allocation of funds from the corresponding budget for this contract.

Let us turn to the decision of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 08/02/2011 in case No. A53-947/2011. It draws the following conclusion: from the provisions of Art. 161 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, as well as Art. 450, 702, 767 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation it follows that under a long-term government contract, if budget funding is not allocated for subsequent years, grounds arise for revising the volume of obligations fulfilled by the parties towards their reduction. In this regard, the counterparty of the state customer under this contract does not have the right, after the expiration of the contract, to demand its extension, if the budgets for the next years do not provide for the corresponding expenses (in particular, in connection with the changed economic situation, which resulted in a decrease in the budget revenues against the planned or change in the structure of its consumable part).

Examples of court decisions on disputes regarding extension of deadlines (table)

Details of the judicial act

Law 44-FZ clearly defines cases when it is possible to change the essential provisions of a contract, which include the deadline for its execution. According to Law No. 223-FZ, everything is somewhat simpler. Customers can change the terms in agreement with suppliers. In any case, if the performance period changes, an additional agreement must be signed to extend the contract period. We'll tell you more about it later.

Additional agreement on extending the validity period of the contract under 44-FZ

The contract system law provides a list of cases when essential provisions of a contract can be changed. It does not provide the possibility of extension without compelling reasons. All procurement procedures are carried out according to the schedule, and the deadline for fulfilling obligations in it is one of the main indicators.

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:

Therefore, the customer does not have the right to enter into an additional agreement to extend the term of the contract under 44-FZ unless there are justified reasons. Otherwise, such a document will simply be considered void. And the customer will be punished with a fine of 20 thousand rubles. for officials and 200 thousand rubles. for legal entities.

• An additional agreement to extend the validity period of the 44-FZ agreement can be concluded if:
• the conditions for the provision of budget funds have changed;
• the contract is concluded for more than six months;
• it is impossible to fulfill the contract without making changes;

the possibility of making amendments is provided for in the contract.

The customer includes all changes in the contract in agreement with the supplier. They are formalized by an additional agreement to extend the term of the contract under 44-FZ. Edits are published in the EIS within 1 business day.

• In addition, the customer can get out of the situation by changing the schedule. This is possible when the procurement plan changes, as well as in the following cases:
• increase or decrease in NMCC;
• change in the term of the contract, the payment procedure or the amount of the advance before the procurement began;
• changing the dates of the procurement procedure;

implementation of the decision made following public discussion.

Additional agreement on extending the validity period of the contract under 223-FZ

The situation is different with the additional agreement to extend the validity of the contract under 223-FZ. Customers working under this law independently establish the terms of purchase in their position. There may be a procedure for prolonging agreements with suppliers.

Please note that it is possible to enter into an additional agreement to extend the validity period of a supply or contract agreement if other essential conditions remain the same. In this case, it is not necessary to make another purchase. About this dated March 24, 2017 No. D28i-1993. It is also important that the possibility of making amendments is provided for in the contract itself and the supplier does not object to them. All changes should be reflected in the Unified Information System.

In order to extend the term of the contract with an additional agreement and not receive claims from government agencies, you need to correctly draw up this document. It indicates.

Extension of the validity of contracts concluded within the framework of the legislation on the contract system is one of the most popular topics for discussion and discussion. Indeed, in the process of implementing their procurement activities, customers sometimes need to extend the concluded contract. The reason for this need may arise for a variety of reasons.

However, contract legislation has strict provisions regarding penalties for untimely fulfillment of contract terms. And from this point of view, the extension can be regarded as a deliberate attempt by an unscrupulous supplier to avoid this responsibility.

We will try to understand this issue and give a specific answer to the question of whether it is possible to extend the validity period of an agreement concluded within the framework of the contract system.

ATTENTION! In order to avoid fines and automate procurement, use our software. The program will check your purchases for errors, calculate the NMCC, help you find the necessary OKPD2 and KTRU, generate a PP + PG for the next year, as well as a report on SMP and SONO 10 times faster!

Extension of the contract period from the point of view of general legislation

Extension of the validity period or, as is more often said, prolongation of the contract is a fairly common phenomenon in the process of implementation by the parties of their contractual relations. Despite the regular use of this procedure, it should be noted that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain the concept of extension. Instead, it provides clear start and end dates for the execution of contracts for the supply of goods, performance of work or provision of services.

There are two options for extending the contract:

1. Conclusion of an additional agreement by the parties.
2. Availability of extension option in the text of the contract.

In both cases, the most important and mandatory condition is to indicate the period for which the contract will be extended.

Extension of the contract term in terms of Law No. 44-FZ

As mentioned above, the legislation on the contract system imposes strict requirements for the timely fulfillment by the parties of their obligations. In addition, the validity period of the concluded contract is an essential condition, which cannot be changed according to Law No.

In this regard, there are a number of exceptions, such as, for example, a price reduction without changing the volume of goods supplied or work performed, a 10 percent decrease or increase in the volume of purchases, etc. These exceptions do not provide for changing the duration of the contract; accordingly, the extension of a contract concluded under Law No. 44-FZ is impossible and will be considered a violation of the requirements of the legislation on the contract system.

The customer is obliged to carry out purchases in full accordance with the schedule posted in the Unified Information System, where deadlines are one of the most important indicators. The conclusion of an additional agreement to extend the term of the contract, as well as the inclusion of relevant conditions in the text of the contract when concluding it, is strictly prohibited and will be considered violations.

Extension of the contract term in terms of Law No. 223-FZ

Customers carrying out procurement activities under Law No. are in less strict conditions, since they independently determine the requirements and develop procurement regulations. Nothing prohibits them from providing for the possibility of including in the text of the contract a provision for its extension.

Despite this, the extension of contracts concluded as a result of competitive procedures may be regarded by regulatory authorities as a restriction of competition, which in certain cases it will actually lead to. Extending the validity period of a concluded contract is nothing more than defining and agreeing on new conditions, but such agreement is carried out with only one participant, while the purchase itself provided for competition.

Based on the above, we can conclude the following:

• prolongation of a contract concluded in accordance with Law No. 223-FZ is not prohibited and is possible;
• the possibility and conditions for extending the contract must be specified by the customer in the procurement regulations;
• It is recommended to use the opportunity to extend the terms of only those contracts that were concluded “directly” with a single supplier.

Conclusion

In our opinion, contract extensions are best avoided. If with Law No. 44-FZ everything is clear and clear on this issue, then Law No. 223-FZ does not regulate it in any way, leaving it to customers and control authorities, who in turn often have different opinions and points of view.

The customer is obliged to carry out purchases in full accordance with the schedule posted in the Unified Information System, where deadlines are one of the most important indicators. The conclusion of an additional agreement to extend the term of the contract, as well as the inclusion of relevant conditions in the text of the contract when concluding it, is strictly prohibited and will be considered violations. Extension of the contract term from the point of view of Law No. 223-FZ Customers carrying out procurement activities under Law No. 223-FZ are in less strict conditions, since they independently determine the requirements and develop procurement regulations. Nothing prohibits them from providing for the possibility of including in the text of the contract a provision for its extension.

Understanding the validity period of a government contract

Under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if there is a significant increase in the cost of materials and equipment provided by the contractor, as well as services provided to him by third parties that could not have been provided for at the conclusion of the contract, the contractor has the right to demand an increase in the established price, and if the customer refuses to fulfill this requirement, termination of the contract in accordance with Art. 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, it is necessary to take into account that, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 34 Important of Law No. 44-FZ, as a general rule, the contract price is fixed and is determined for the entire period of execution of the contract. The parties have the right to change the contract price only on the grounds provided for in Art.
95 Law No. 44-FZ. Only one of these reasons is related to changes in prices for work. So, according to clause 5, part 1, art. Law No. 44-FZ), which obviously does not apply to the case under consideration; - in accordance with Part 1.1 of Art.

Maximum term for concluding a contract under Federal Law 44 in 2018

Previous legislation provided for several exceptions to this rule. After the introduction of the amendments, it became impossible to conclude an additional agreement to extend the delivery period and the validity of the contract. This is confirmed by letter of the Ministry of Finance No. 02-02-15/24252 dated April 22, 2016 and letter of the Ministry of Economy and Development No. OG-D28-4011 dated March 31, 2017.
In the previous edition of 44-FZ there was a reference to the fact that the parties can extend the terms of execution of the contract if they reach mutual agreement on this issue. However, at the beginning of 2017, a Government decree came into force, which abolished this rule. From now on, the contract term cannot be changed.

For example, breaking the contract will entail the imposition of significant penalties. The contract will be renegotiated (terminated and concluded on new terms) if no significant financial losses are expected. For example, a government agency for accepting work decides to continue cooperation with the Customer (for example, communication services).

It is impossible to extend an existing contract; a new one must be concluded on the same terms. An example from legal practice: due to changes in budget funding for the construction of a highway, the Customer decided to change the payment terms (the contract specified payment stages tied to the stages of work) without shifting the terms of the work itself. The contractor demanded a change in the work schedule in court, and the court granted his request.

How to change state deadlines?

Changing the terms of the state contract 44-FZ

of the Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement and such a change led to additional expenditure of funds from the corresponding budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation or a decrease in the number of supplied 44-FZ in 2018: review of changes in the regulatory regulation of the contract system that came into force after January 1, 2018 Appeared standard terms of contracts providing for the involvement of subcontractors, co-executors from among the SMP, SONO in the execution of contracts Anti-crisis measures in the field of state and municipal procurement are no longer applied It is prohibited to make purchases that are not included in the schedules Dear friends, we are waiting for your questions and comments! You ask - we answer! Invalidity of a family law contract and limitation period The article analyzes the limits of application of limitation period in family relations.

44-FZ: change of contract term

In the judicial practice of the Russian Federation, the following circumstances are considered objective:

• A decrease in funding for work due to a reduction in funds allocated from the budget, and accordingly, a change in deadlines is associated with this;
• Increase in supply volumes under government contracts (but not more than 10%).

This, in addition to Federal Law 44, is indicated by clause 1 of Art. 767 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Termination or extension of the term of a municipal contract under 44 Federal Laws? In some cases, the court will insist on terminating the contract and paying a fine even if the parties mutually agree to extend it. Changing the term, as mentioned above, refers to the essential terms of the concluded contract, and good reasons are needed to change them. The contract may be extended if its termination leads to significant financial losses for the Customer, the Contractor, or harms the interests of the state.

Ipc-zvezda.ru

As an example of practice, you can also familiarize yourself with the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated 07.11.2013 N F09-10788/13, 2 AAS dated 17.02.2010 N 02AP-352/2010 and Resolution 2 AAS dated 30.04.2014 N 02AP- 3030/14. 2. If the contract period according to the Federal Law of 04/05/2013

Attention

N 44-FZ has expired, but there is no deadline for fulfilling obligations, that is, by the time the contract expires, the obligations have not been fulfilled, is it possible to change the terms of the contract regarding the term? No you can not. The grounds for changing the contract are specified in Art. 95 of Federal Law N 44-FZ. There is no such basis as indicated in the question, which means it is impossible to change the contract in this case. However, we must remember that if the obligations are not fulfilled, the contract continues to be in force until the obligations under the contract are fulfilled.

This is stated in Part 3 of Art. 425 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Changing deadlines subject to force majeure According to Article 401 of the Civil Code of Russia, if a party proves that fulfillment of obligations is impossible due to force majeure circumstances, then it is released from liability. The concept of force majeure or force majeure includes national emergencies, natural disasters, man-made disasters, military conflicts, and so on. If the counterparty demands a change in the terms of the contract, citing the occurrence of force majeure, then he will have to prove this.
Confirmation may be a document received from government agencies, for example, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and so on. In this case, the contract term will actually remain the same, but the supplier will not pay fines and penalties payable for late delivery.

Is it possible to change the duration of the contract by 44 ap 2018

The parties entered into an additional agreement to change the contract price and payment terms. At the same time, the customer refused to enter data on adjusting the deadlines for completing the work. In court, the customer’s actions were declared unlawful.

The court ordered to adjust the deadlines for completing the work and make appropriate amendments to the contract. Based on court decisions in cases F09-6545/15, F07-4109/15, A58-619/2016 and many others, one can clearly conclude that the conclusion of an additional agreement to change the terms is considered illegal. Responsibility of the customer If violations are detected in changing the essential terms of the contract, which includes the deadline for completion of the work or delivery of goods, a fine is imposed on the customer.

Its amount for a legal entity is set at 200 thousand rubles, and for an official - 20 thousand rubles.
Extension of the validity of contracts concluded under the legislation on the contract system is one of the most popular topics for discussion and discussion. Indeed, in the process of implementing their procurement activities, customers sometimes need to extend the concluded contract. The reason for this need may arise for a variety of reasons.

Info

However, contract legislation has strict provisions regarding penalties for untimely fulfillment of contract terms. And from this point of view, the extension can be regarded as a deliberate attempt by an unscrupulous supplier to avoid this responsibility. We will try to understand this issue and give a specific answer to the question of whether it is possible to extend the validity period of an agreement concluded within the framework of the contract system.

A state contract under Federal Law 44 is an agreement (civil legal act) that is aimed at providing services or goods to government agencies and municipal enterprises. In addition to the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the content of the contract is regulated by Federal Law No. 44, which specifies fairly stringent requirements for the conditions for the execution of work. In particular, in Art. 95 of the law spells out a number of provisions, changes to which are unacceptable.

These include essential provisions of the contract, such as the contract price, list of works, delivery dates, etc. According to Art. 95 of the Law, changing the deadlines for the execution of a contract can be classified as essential provisions and cannot be changed. However, in paragraphs. “b” clause 1 part 1 art. 95 of the Federal Law talks about exceptions that allow the Customer and the Contractor to shift the deadline for completing the contract.

• Schedule for 44-FZ: formation, approval, amendment
• Purchasing information
• Information on purchases of PJSC NK Rosneft and subsidiaries of PJSC NK Rosneft
• Change of contract execution period for 44 ap in 2018
• Change of contract execution period under Federal Law 44 in 2018

Schedule under 44-FZ: formation, approval, amendment It is possible to conclude a contract with a person who is not the winner of the auction only if the winner of the electronic auction is recognized as having evaded concluding a contract (Part 14, Article 70 of Law No. 44-FZ ) or to the customer in accordance with Part 9 of Art. 37 of Law No. 44-FZ, in this case, no justification for the proposed contract price was provided (Part 10 of the same article).