We secured a refusal to blacklist a supplier after a bid price error. On 28 September 2026, the Moscow Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) refused to include Rubicon LLC in Russia’s Register of Bad-Faith Suppliers (RNP). The bid stated the price of one item instead of the total supply price. Although the contract was not signed, the commission examined the error and found blacklisting disproportionate in this case.
This case from my practice explains the defence, the evidence behind the price calculation and the limits of the outcome. The complete Russian-language FAS decision is attached below.
No RNP inclusion
The commission refused the contracting authority’s request to blacklist the supplier.
A verifiable price error
RUB 10,289 was the price of one scale; the procurement required 97 scales.
A procedural breach remained
The refusal to blacklist did not make the failure to sign the contract lawful.
Why the Supplier Faced RNP Proceedings
Rubicon LLC took part in an electronic request for quotations under Federal Law No. 44-FZ for medical floor scales. The contracting authority was the Solovyov Scientific and Practical Centre of the Moscow Healthcare Department. Procurement reference: 0373200009526000091. The initial maximum contract price was RUB 1,391,780.25.
The intended unit price was RUB 10,289. The bidder entered that figure in the total contract price field without multiplying it by the quantity. The company won with an offer to supply all 97 scales for RUB 10,289 and did not sign the resulting contract draft. The authority recorded contract-signing avoidance and referred the matter to Moscow FAS.
Case Timeline
The bid was submitted with an incorrect total price.
The results were recorded and the contract draft was posted.
The authority posted the contract-signing avoidance record.
The FAS commission refused RNP inclusion.
How the Price Error Was Explained
The defence demonstrated the arithmetic mechanism rather than relying on a general assertion of carelessness.
The bid stated RUB 10,289 for the entire supply. The intended total was RUB 998,033: exactly 97 times the entered amount.
| Figure | Amount | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Initial maximum price | RUB 1,391,780.25 | The procurement’s starting price |
| Rubicon’s entered bid | RUB 10,289 | More than 99% below the initial maximum |
| Second bidder | RUB 971,094 | Below Rubicon’s intended total |
| Intended supply total | RUB 998,033 | Unit price multiplied by quantity |
| Third bidder | RUB 1,034,602 | Above Rubicon’s intended total |
The intended amount fell between the second and third bidders’ offers. That supported the explanation that a unit price had been entered as a total price. The commission identified the reduction of more than 99% as evidence of an obvious technical error.
The Defence Against Blacklisting
Our written explanations acknowledged the bidder’s input error. They did not attribute the mistake to an unproven platform malfunction or to the contracting authority: the draft reproduced the bidder’s own figure.
We separated compliance with contract-signing procedure from the grounds for RNP inclusion. The defence focused on individual assessment of the supplier’s conduct, the mechanism of the error and proportionality. We did not ask to preserve the winning position by increasing the contract price: the intended RUB 998,033 exceeded the second bidder’s offer.
| Record | What it established or helped verify |
|---|---|
| Procurement notice and specifications | The subject matter and quantity of 97 scales |
| Bid and contract draft | How a unit price became the total supply price |
| Results record and calculation | The relationship between the intended total and competing offers |
| Written explanations | The cause of the error and the absence of a request to retain victory through a price increase |
The explanations also referred to paragraph 41 of the Russian Supreme Court procurement review of 28 June 2017, which addresses intent and steps taken to conclude a contract. That review concerned an error in performance security; this case concerned the total bid price. Different facts require their own assessment and do not ensure an identical outcome.
What Moscow FAS Decided
In its decision of 28 September 2026, case No. 077/10/104-14090/2026, the commission refused to include information about Rubicon LLC in the RNP. Its reasoning assessed intent and bad-faith conduct and found blacklisting disproportionate in the circumstances.
The commission also found a breach of Article 51(3) of Law No. 44-FZ and indications of an offence under Article 7.30.2(2) of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences. It referred the file for consideration of whether to initiate administrative proceedings. The decision does not establish that a fine was imposed or that administrative liability was excluded.
The achieved result was refusal to blacklist the supplier. The decision does not establish that a contract was concluded at the corrected price, that the avoidance record was annulled or that a bidder may freely revise its price.
What to Preserve After a Bid Price Error
- Keep the original pricing calculation and evidence of quantity and unit cost.
- Collect the bid, notice, results record and contract draft.
- Record when the error was discovered and when the authority and platform operator were contacted; preserve delivery evidence.
- Explain the precise error and the actions actually taken after discovery.
- Address RNP proceedings and potential administrative liability separately.
These steps help assemble evidence but do not guarantee refusal of blacklisting. The facts, deadlines and bidder’s conduct must be assessed in each case.
Download the FAS Decision Refusing RNP Inclusion
Complete Moscow FAS decision dated 28 September 2026, case No. 077/10/104-14090/2026: five pages, in Russian. The price error appears on pages 3–4; the operative decision is on page 5.
↓ Open and download the FAS decision — PDF in Russian
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a supplier avoid RNP inclusion after failing to sign?
In this case the commission refused inclusion after examining the price error and conduct. An error alone does not ensure that result in another procurement.
Does entering a unit price instead of a total price justify refusal?
It may be relevant when supported by evidence and calculations. Here, multiplying by 97 produced a total consistent with competing offers.
Was the contract price increased to RUB 998,033?
The attached decision records no such outcome. The defence concerned refusal of RNP inclusion, not retention of the winning position through a price change.
Does refusal of RNP inclusion exclude an administrative fine?
No. The commission referred this file for consideration of administrative proceedings. Blacklisting and administrative liability are separate questions.
What document confirms the result?
The Moscow FAS decision of 28 September 2026 in case No. 077/10/104-14090/2026. Its PDF is attached to this article.
Facing RNP Proceedings?
An initial consultation can review the procurement documents, the error and the possible defence before FAS. The position depends on the evidence and procedural stage.
Book a legal consultationAuthor: lawyer Pavel Petrov. Case analysis based on the decision of 28 September 2026 and the supplier’s written explanations. Published 2 October 2026. Other cases depend on their own facts.