| Abstrakt: |
Certain statements of the new edition of Ukraine Law «On Public Procurement» concerning the ability to establish more efficient system of disbursing public funds is analyzed. The introduction of simplified procurement under the law definitely contributes to savings, but the procedure of such procurement should be described more clearly, especially in terms of monitoring and appeal. The need for reporting on all concluded contracts from 1 kopeck is doubtful. In terms of innovations procurement planning, the emphasis is shifted from the annual plan as a whole towards its interpretation as a product of people's creativity. With a significant number of people involved in procurement processes, this results in random errors with unpredictable consequences. The scope of requirements for proposals from participants is expanded in the new version of the law, on the contrary to the expectations. Some of them seem to be irrelevant. Providing the opportunity to amend particular documents of the tender proposal is generally positive, but it would be more reasonable to expand the list of such documents and clarify the period of their refinement. It is determined that the updated law takes into account certain negative aspects of the past and defines the concept of abnormally low price giving the customer the right to apply the negotiated procurement procedure in case of termination of the contract due to the participant fault or in case of long-term appeals; the clearly reasons for increasing the price per unit after the contract conclusion in order to prevent the participants from deliberately dumping, groundless appeals, unreasonable demands to increase the price per unit. At the same time, there are certain comments for each of the above-mentioned innovations concerning the content and formulation, the expediency of exceptions from their actions. The new rules of the application of administrative responsibility to the employees who are responsible for public procurement are confusing. It is impossible to increase the efficiency of the system only by punitive measures on one side of the process. In order to achieve this goal, more substantial comprehensive revision of the law as a whole is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
