Experts of the Analytical center under the government of the (ATS) has questioned the appropriateness of the register of unfair suppliers as a disciplining mechanism in public procurement. Getting into the registry and, accordingly, the removal from the market of public procurement, in their opinion, often unnecessarily, while the real offenders continue to receive contracts. Alternative experts see the development of reputation with dip in it-both positive and negative behavior of counterparties. Customers and suppliers in the evaluation of the initiative expected went.The experts of ATS proposed to revise the mechanism to include the executors of government contracts in the rating of unfair suppliers (RNP), abandoning the punitive approach in favour of disciplining. The procurement monitoring showed that the requirement of no provider in the CHP contains 100% of notices for procurement of a state (FL-44) and 99% — state-owned companies (FZ-223). The mechanism establishes the fact of violation, regardless of the extent of damage and fault of the vendor, indicates the head of corporate reforms and procurement of ATS Pavel Tikhomirov.So, in 2019, the registry got the First regional energy company in 2018, the company no claim has fulfilled the contracts for 62,5 million roubles, but from-for evasion from conclusion of a contract by 0.2 mln. was in the CHP (0.4% of the contract amount). The reasons of evasion from the conclusion of the contract may be quite justified, experts say: for example, the incorrect description of the procurement by the customer at the stage of notice. “The company honestly reports that he will not be able to comply with the terms of the customer, but in addition to the loss of the software application gets to the register, and loses access to government contracts for two years”,— says Mr. Tikhomirov. Companies who do not refuse fulfillment of the contract, but doing it in bad faith, in the CHP are not included: in some cases, such vendors may have up to 90% of the contracts with the claims.Alternatively the register of unfair suppliers, the experts propose to introduce the rating of business reputation (DDR) — evaluation of the past behavior of the contractor in the performance of contractual obligations. Recall, the rating is applied as a separate state-owned companies, to introduce in the Federal law FZ-44 in this year’s proposed FAS. Earlier in the service explained that the mechanism should be the criterion of the positive experience of providers in contrast to RNP. The experts propose to take into account in the rating and negative behavior, its factors can be penalties and fines, the avoidance of the contract and the claim for quality (see “Kommersant-Online”).As explained “Kommersant” Deputy head of the FAS Michael Evraev, the inclusion in the CHP for falsification and counterfeiting, are already possible in connection with the termination of the contract on these grounds. “The failure to include in the CHP in UKAnenii contract in many cases can lead to failure of bidding and have a negative impact on the customers”, he concluded.Diana Galawala the Central arbitration Committee of Rosatom Herman Gonzo notes: the use of reputation the Corporation aims to reduce the risk of the customer to disrupt production programs in the case of a contract with a supplier not previously performed the obligations. The risks depend on the probability of inadequate performance of contracts, Statute of limitations violations and the possible consequences of non-compliance. First Vice-President “Support of Russia” Azat Gazizov agree with the initiatives of ATS. “The mechanism of the passage of time is outdated and does not always adequately punish the company depending on the severity of the offense: create a more balanced mechanism will allow to take into account the situation when the supplier violates the obligation not malicious intent, but because of objective reasons,” he explains. However, as shown by a survey of participants, customers are not ready to abandon the CHP in case of evasion of vendors from contract: the idea is not to make providers in the CHP for failing to support only a quarter of respondents. A third of respondents agreed that evasion can be seen as “good behavior, preventing a more significant risk.” At the same time customers are supported toughening of responsibility of suppliers and expanding the grounds for making them in the CHP due to falsification of documents and supply of counterfeit goods. Diana Galievich told “Kommersant” in the Ministry of Finance, the direct reputation-based rating is now impossible: “In contrast to the list of unfair suppliers, the rating is not a measure of responsibility for improper actions.” In addition, the Ministry concluded that the rating itself is not stipulated by law. However, the Finance Ministry is ready to discuss changes in the law. “The need for its introduction will be discussed further in the results of the additional matching “optimization” bill”,— noted in the Department.Diana Galieva