Our client, a large manufacturer of ready-made meals that has been operating in the Russian market for more than 30 years, has signed a government contract for the provision of catering services in a medical facility in the capital with a maximum price of 129 million rubles.

The services were provided within six months, and the customer and his staff constantly received thanks for the high quality of the products.

However, at the end of the previous year, the customer sent several claims in a short time and announced the unilateral termination of the contract, citing violations that did not actually occur:

1. Violation of temperature control during product delivery.
2. Violation of sanitary and epidemiological regulations.
3. Change in the composition of one dish.

By the Principal, responses to all claims have been prepared and sent:

1. The services were accepted and paid for by the customer in full and without any comments for the entire delivery period. Meanwhile, claims were filed against two batches of products, with the total contractual obligations fulfilled amounting to 66 million rubles.
2. The delivery vehicle is equipped with certified refrigeration equipment.
3. Rospotrebnadzor has compiled test reports for these same products, confirming their safety.

Despite the supplier’s justified position, the customer insisted on terminating the contract and applied to the Moscow Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service with a request to include the Principal in the Register of Unscrupulous Suppliers.

For the Principal, whose main activity is providing catering services to budgetary organizations, this was a serious threat, as inclusion in the Register would entail the termination of other existing contracts, the total value of which exceeds 1.689 billion rubles and could lead to a complete halt in the company’s operations.

We promptly joined the process, taking into account the tight deadlines for administrative proceedings. As it turned out later, the customer, acting in circumvention of the law, decided to replace our Principal with another supplier, having no legal grounds for that.

We have prepared a detailed position in which, in addition to the violations indicated by the Principal, we drew the attention of the FAS to the fact that the Supplier was ready to fulfill the contract, but the customer through its inaction (not submitting applications in 2026) itself disrupted its further execution.

It was emphasized that the client has an impeccable reputation and extensive experience in the successful execution of government contracts, while the grounds for unilateral termination and inclusion in the RNP are not supported by proper evidence, and the actions of the customer violate the norms of 44-FZ and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Following a lengthy hearing, the Federal Antimonopoly Service agreed with our position, finding it as justified, and rejected the unscrupulous customer’s claim.

The project’s contractor is Senior Lawyer Grigory Mirovsky.