The draft law on amending the Code of Administrative Offences has been developed by the Federal Service for Defence Contracts pursuant to a directive on tightening liability for violation of the requirements set by legislative and other acts regarding state defense procurement in accordance with Article 1 G (Paragraph 3) of Presidential Executive Order No. 603 of May 7, 2012, On the Fulfilment of Construction Plans (Programmes) and Improvement of the Russian Armed Forces, Other Troops, Military Units and Agencies and Modernisation of the Defence Industry.
An analysis of the review measures taken in recent years by the Federal Service for Defence Contracts, the Accounts Chamber and the Presidential Control Directorate has revealed a large number of violations by state procurement officials and major executors of state defence contracts.
The Federal Law On State Defence Procurement establishes a number of new rules. The liability for breaching these rules by state defence procurement vendors and major executors as well as their staff has not been defined.
Provisions of the bill specify administrative responsibility of state procurement officials, major executors of state defence orders and their staff for actions or omissions leading to a breach of the law and other regulations regarding state defence procurement.
The bill also specifies the jurisdiction of the cases on violations in state defence procurement. The federal executive body authorised to oversee state defence procurement and represented by its head, deputy head and heads of departments, as well as heads of regional branches shall be responsible for considering administrative violation cases under articles 7.32, article 14.52 part 1, and the newly introduced article 15.37.The bill proposes that the Code of Administrative Offences be expanded with more administrative violations, which include:
- non-compliance with the law on decisions to organise a closed tender;
- violation of the procedure for setting an initial (or maximum) price of a defence procurement contract or the cost of a state contract when placing a state defence order with a sole supplier (executor, contractor);
- refusal of the sole supplier (executor, contractor) to conclude a state contract on a state defence order;
- - delayed placement of assignments of a state procurement order;
- failure to observe deadlines or payment terms in relation to goods (services) required by the state as part of the state procurement order;
- breaches of a state contract on defence procurement;
- gross violation of separate accounting of economic activity.
The bill will be discussed at a Government meeting.