Military Review

The State Duma is considering a bill on the introduction of fines for the supplier’s refusal of a defense contract

122
The State Duma in the first reading adopted a bill that provides for the imposition of a fine to 1 million rubles. the arms supplier for refusing to sign a contract as part of the defense order, reports TASS.

The State Duma is considering a bill on the introduction of fines for the supplier’s refusal of a defense contract


The draft provides for the amendment of the Code on Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. “The amendments, in particular, impose sanctions for the refusal or evasion of a supplier of Russian weapons and military equipment that have no domestic counterparts, as well as the only performer or contractor defined by legislative acts of the Russian Federation, the president and the government, from concluding an obligatory state contract for the state defense order. It is envisaged that the fine in this case will be from 30 thousand to 50 thousand rubles, for legal entities - from 300 thousand to 1 million rubles, ”the message says.

The same sanctions are provided for “for refusal or evasion of a supplier (performer, contractor) occupying a dominant position in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of state defense, if the conclusion of such a contract is mandatory for the said person.”

In addition, “the bill establishes the procedure for forming and paying for material and technical reserves created for the fulfillment of the state defense order, specifies the procedure for spending the contract by executing profits during the implementation of the intermediate stages, establishes the responsibility of the state contractor’s dominant position in the market,” said Vladimir Guteneev .

“Amending the law on state defense order will reduce the cost of military products: companies will make a profit after the partial execution of the order,” he added.
Photos used:
rostec.ru
122 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey K
    Andrey K 11 June 2016 14: 10
    +22
    The measure is reasonable. In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently, they simply could not digest request
    Several times the president, at the bottom of the military reception, also paid attention to this request
    With a state defense order, such things should not happen a priori, one of the production chain will stumble - consider that the plan for the production of this or that product is definitely failed negative
    For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it negative
    This is just banal greed and irresponsibility. Nothing more. If the government order was thwarted, especially the defense order, jokes to the side and forward on the bunks, or to cut the forest hi
    And by the time when
    1. RESEARCHER
      RESEARCHER 11 June 2016 14: 15
      +32
      It would be better to limit or better isolate commercial banks from defense financing. And then no alpha banks will begin to think of bankrupt Uralvagozavod.
      1. cniza
        cniza 11 June 2016 15: 41
        +9
        Well, the state pays merchants for the fulfillment of state functions - insanity.
        1. dauria
          dauria 11 June 2016 17: 08
          +2
          the state pays merchants for the performance of state functions - insanity.


          An agreement that cannot be waived is not insanity?
          Uncle, buy a brick ... and try not to buy wassat What else can this "obligation" be called? From "quitrent, corvee, duty" to "order, order"?

          Of course, concluded, execute ... But to impose by force - is it "contract" ?
          1. weksha50
            weksha50 11 June 2016 17: 54
            +3
            Quote: dauria
            An agreement that cannot be waived is not insanity?



            No, not insanity, when it comes to the country's defense ...

            I think that the fine is small ...

            Here it would be more expedient to tighten measures for such enterprises: if it (the company), in pursuit of short-term profit, refuses to fulfill the state order, immediately find a thousand and one reasons for depriving him of a license for all types of his activities ... That is, practically and cynically - Terror ... However, otherwise we and that remains in the defense industry will be completely destroyed so that already there will be nothing and impossible to restore ...
          2. opus
            opus 11 June 2016 17: 59
            +11
            Quote: dauria
            But to impose by force - is this a "contract"?

            Agreement - “an agreement of two or more persons on the establishment, amendment or termination of civil rights and obligations” (Article 420 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
            Simply put, this is a product (agreement) - consent, which is product with full non-resistance of the parties. / I. Ilf and E. Petrov

            1. The bill, which provides for a fine of up to 1 million rubles. on an arms supplier for refusing to sign a contract as part of a defense order, this is bullshit. Miscarriage of worthless State Duma deputies (they have nothing to do anymore)
            2. It contradicts the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (and the Constitution of the Russian Federation), tiputati tipuati lose in a normal court.
            3. Something is not normal in our house.

            As a rule, GOZ (state defense order) is fiercely fought (it’s understandable), using all means (2003: Acting General Director of the Air Defense Concern (created on the basis of two air defense giants - Almaz and Antey) Igor Klimov was killed two minutes walk from the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Serpukhov’s “Ratep” murder of a financial director), and what kind of squabble does the Americans have for the defense?
          3. Homo
            Homo 11 June 2016 18: 14
            -5
            Quote: dauria
            An agreement that cannot be waived is not insanity?

            Can I rephrase your words a little?
            The defense of the homeland, which can not be abandoned, is not insanity?
            1. Homo
              Homo 11 June 2016 23: 58
              +1
              And as always there is nothing to justify the minus?
          4. Midshipman
            Midshipman 11 June 2016 18: 30
            +5
            Exactly. In Stalin's times, such an approach was the only right one, but now other times and not you and I have given birth to them. Or do you agree on garlic with commerce, which your hands are the product of (speech about power). Or, with garlic, transfer the economy to other tracks: planned, Stalinist, whatever, but don’t sculpt against the wall of a hunchback.
            1. bovig
              bovig 13 June 2016 17: 02
              0
              Quote: Midshipman
              Exactly. In Stalin's times, such an approach was the only right one, but now other times and not you and I have given birth to them. Or do you agree on garlic with commerce, which your hands are the product of (speech about power). Or, with garlic, transfer the economy to other tracks: planned, Stalinist, whatever, but don’t sculpt against the wall of a hunchback.

              Either - or, garlic! Probably, this will be the only fair decision, according to your understanding. But those in power may have a different opinion - that's why she is the power ...)))) However, I will bring in my five kopecks: why should the question be so tough - either, or? "We will destroy the whole world of violence to the ground, and then ..."?)))
              And if like this: slowly, gradually, but steadily transfer the economy to a planned basis! As Putin said in the State Duma: "The chicken is biting by the grain ..."))) Why not start with the defense industry?
          5. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 11 June 2016 20: 05
            +5
            Yes, the offer is complete nonsense. It would be nice to fine those who participated in the bidding, won, but refused to sign the contract. Although this is usually done as part of an agreement at bidding, and this is a criminal article, and not some kind of penalty. But OBLIGATING under the threat of a penalty to conclude an agreement on the conditions that the customer wants - this is no way. This is what happens, the state wanted and says sell me your goods for three pennies, or not a million fine, but I want to bid again and then a million again.
          6. Kyrgyz
            Kyrgyz 14 June 2016 15: 02
            0
            Quote: dauria
            An agreement that cannot be waived is not insanity?

            I, as an entrepreneur who fulfilled the obligation at an imposed price, wrote above how it will be done, from practice it is better not to do anything than this, or buy out the enterprise at a fair price with a premium to the owner or rent it with compensation for damage and do there what you want and how you want, this and there is respect for private property and the market economy cannot stand with one foot in the market and the other in the "surplus appropriation" will not be from one or the other sense
        2. Midshipman
          Midshipman 11 June 2016 18: 35
          +2
          No, really. Either we have commerce, or a government order. an attempt to blind them is a chimera.
          1. poquello
            poquello 11 June 2016 19: 18
            +2
            Quote: Midshipman
            No, really. Either we have commerce, or a government order. an attempt to blind them is a chimera.

            not a chimera, just harder, the easiest ways to control - slavery and dictatorship
            1. Midshipman
              Midshipman 11 June 2016 19: 30
              0
              Complex is not necessary, the necessary is not difficult (c) The main thing is not to deceive ourselves.
            2. Midshipman
              Midshipman 11 June 2016 19: 31
              0
              Complex is not necessary; what is needed is not difficult (c).

              All the wisdom of being is in the 10 commandments, and everything else is from the evil one.
        3. vlad_vlad
          vlad_vlad 11 June 2016 19: 58
          +3
          Quote: cniza
          Well, the state pays merchants for the fulfillment of state functions - insanity.


          you have strange ideas about life.

          The state pays for the performance of any functions - this is called "state order", not insanity. Those. how much% of the economy of Russia is it "insanity" in your opinion? 20, 30, 50%?

          in my opinion, insanity is when bureaucrats will impose "easy" fines instead of "hard" work. It will still be the turn of those who wish to appoint fines.

          somehow it always was like that - the performer (driver, pilot, doctor ...) is always wrong, and the customer (boss) - the hero on a horse with a saber - is always right, that’s the penalty he imposed, he reacted.
          1. bovig
            bovig 13 June 2016 17: 14
            0
            Quote: vlad_vlad
            Quote: cniza
            Well, the state pays merchants for the fulfillment of state functions - insanity.


            you have strange ideas about life.

            The state pays for the performance of any functions - this is called "state order", not insanity. Those. how much% of the economy of Russia is it "insanity" in your opinion? 20, 30, 50%?

            in my opinion, insanity is when bureaucrats will impose "easy" fines instead of "hard" work. It will still be the turn of those who wish to appoint fines.

            somehow it always was like that - the performer (driver, pilot, doctor ...) is always wrong, and the customer (boss) - the hero on a horse with a saber - is always right, that’s the penalty he imposed, he reacted.

            In general, who assigns the fines is spelled out in the Administrative Code for a long time! Many people, of course, besides those registered, had to meet in life, but it is enough to send them to the right place and they are lagging behind!)))) I have observations and other practice - when those wishing to impose fines achieve their goals, but this is from another story ... After all, we live in a society in which "life is bad without a sucker")))) It is interesting that the majority (according to my observations) meekly take on the role of a sucker. But, I assure you, this practice (including the number of those wishing to impose fines) has nothing to do with the current legislation ...
      2. Kyrgyz
        Kyrgyz 14 June 2016 14: 58
        0
        Quote: RESEARCHER
        It would be better to limit or better isolate commercial banks from defense financing. And then no alpha banks will begin to think of bankrupt Uralvagozavod.

        Uralvagonzavod itself came to the bank and not the bank forced it to borrow, borrowed on conditions whether it would be good to perform either business or industry, or agree to accept the lender’s terms in exchange for a reprieve, it’s not the bank’s fault but the fault of the UVZ management. Where is it interesting to take money for order execution if there is no bank? save your own? First, making four tanks two years, then five two years, then 6 years, then eight two years, then change the model, give everything for equipment and first one tank ... after 1000 years, to the production level, go out?)))
    2. Teberii
      Teberii 11 June 2016 14: 15
      +5
      This is correct. The country's defense should not suffer from people who want only to get money.
      1. DMB_95
        DMB_95 11 June 2016 14: 35
        +11
        A company may not be fined, because fine hosts taken out of the pocket of workers and engineers. The owners of such enterprises must be severely punished for the first violation and deprived of property for the second. Particularly important defense structures should only belong to the state.
    3. Giant thought
      Giant thought 11 June 2016 14: 17
      +4
      A very necessary measure to prevent sabotage in the event that the owners of private firms begin to put their fingers in a fan or if foreign owners, explicit or hidden, want to spoil our defense industry.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 11 June 2016 14: 29
        +5
        Quote: Thought Giant
        A very necessary measure to prevent sabotage
        A fine of 1 (one) million rubles for undermining the defense of the state is a sufficient sanction, do you think? Under Joseph Vissarionovich, for such cases the guilty would have been sent ten years to taiga places and shave Christmas trees. And this is at least.
        1. Reserve officer
          Reserve officer 11 June 2016 14: 59
          +15
          Defense orders are generally a special song. It's easiest to come up with fines, but what about help? For example, financing of such enterprises directly from a state bank (not the Central Bank, but specifically a specially created state one for such purposes) in order to cut off a bunch of commercial intermediary banks from defense orders. Or the purchase of equipment without customs duties and without games in depreciation. Or the revival of the distribution of graduates of vocational schools and universities for such defense enterprises. Or, finally, the nationalization of defense enterprises.
          Manufacturers have a lot of problems, just need to delve into. To do this, of course, you need competence. Where is she in the Duma now?
    4. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 11 June 2016 14: 17
      +3
      Quote: Andrey K
      subsequently simply could not digest

      They asked so much that the ass will stick together. yes
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 11 June 2016 14: 20
        +10
        Quote: Vladimirets
        They asked so much that the ass will stick together. yes

        They grab so much that there is simply indigestion ...
    5. Amurets
      Amurets 11 June 2016 14: 22
      +7
      “The amendments, in particular, introduce sanctions for the refusal or evasion of a supplier of Russian weapons and military equipment that have no domestic counterparts, as well as the only contractor or contractor defined by the legislative acts of the Russian Federation, the president and the government, from concluding a mandatory state contract under the state defense order. >>
      Quote: Andrey K
      reasonable measure. In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently simply could not digest

      Do not understand your comment? It is completely opposite in meaning to the bill under consideration.
      1. subbtin.725
        subbtin.725 11 June 2016 14: 34
        +5
        There was such an article - "" Sabotage "", up to ten years you could get into an easy one. In 2015, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation offered to return ...., but things are still there.
        1. weksha50
          weksha50 11 June 2016 18: 03
          +2
          Quote: subbtin.725
          There was such an article - "" Sabotage "", up to ten years you could get into an easy one. In 2015, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation offered to return ...., but things are still there.



          Hmm ... What kind of law will accept ???

          After all, the next day the whole Duma and the whole government had to be transplanted ... Without exception, without exception ...
      2. Andrey K
        Andrey K 11 June 2016 14: 55
        +11
        Quote: Amurets
        Do not understand your comment? It is completely opposite in meaning to the bill under consideration.

        It's okay, now I’ll explain: look at the last phrase defined by legislative acts of the Russian Federation, the president and the government, from the conclusion of a mandatory state contract for public defense
        It is understood that the SDO has been approved and, accordingly, the contract executing companies have been approved. Firms fit in, fit in, and they are in no hurry to fulfill their obligations. As a rule, they try to pull funds from the state "here, now and immediately." So far, the practice is to pay quarterly work from the Ministry of Defense. Firms "twist their arms" to the annual. The Ministry of Defense naturally resists - the ability to control the spending of funds is leaving the hands, and "cunning" contractors, citing lack of funds, begin to sabotage the execution of the order. Something like that, if simple. If you go into the jungle of accounting, then there are so many nuances and different roundabout ways that the brain will melt hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 15: 50
          -2
          Quote: Andrey K
          It's okay, now I’ll explain

          Read the article first, try to UNDERSTAND what is written in it, then take it. I gave a detailed comment below
          1. Andrey K
            Andrey K 11 June 2016 16: 21
            +7
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Read the article first, try to UNDERSTAND what is written in it, then take it. I gave a detailed comment below

            Dear, first of all, you somehow famously, according to Chapaevsky, said so about yourself that I had already sensed nothing more than my own inferiority laughing
            And you declare to all interlocutors that they do not know how to read between the lines and you are the most competent and versed here?
            My friend, your detailed commentary is only your comment - in other words, YOUR PERSONAL perception. And do not expose yourself to seven spans in the forehead (or forehead). This is at least not correct.
            Learn the materiel, what is the state defense order, how it is formed, who are the participants and so on.
            PS I read your messy "calculations". Unconvincing - they mixed sour with fresh.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 17: 40
              +1
              Quote: Andrey K
              Dear, first of all, you somehow famously, according to Chapaevsky, said so about yourself that I had already sensed nothing more than my own inferiority

              It's good. Because from the realization of your own inferiority in this matter, you may come to understand the need to read the articles that you comment on. And then I do not even exclude the possibility that you will be able to realize the need to at least minimize the question that you undertake to comment.
              Quote: Andrey K
              And you declare to all interlocutors that they cannot read between the lines

              Do not - between. Start by reading the lines themselves.
              Quote: Andrey K
              Learn the materiel, what is the state defense order, how it is formed, who are the participants and so on.
              PS I read your messy "calculations". Unconvincing - they mixed sour with fresh.

              My friend, when will you prepare the whole package of documents for approval of the state contract on the state defense order, when you approve all economic standards from the military representatives, when you get a conclusion from them, when you can defend this conclusion before other military representatives and the FAS representatives in Moscow, when you work with dozens of accounts, when you’ll talk with banks that can’t transfer special accounts for three days of an elementary payment when you try to persuade your company’s suppliers to open special accounts — then your opinion on this issue will mean something to me
              1. Andrey K
                Andrey K 11 June 2016 18: 12
                +5
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It's good. Because from the realization of your own inferiority in this matter, you may come to understand the need to read the articles that you comment on. And then I do not even exclude the possibility that you will be able to realize the need to at least minimize the question that you undertake to comment.

                Are you serious about inferiority? laughing
                You realize what nonsense are here request
                And yes, I'm making a note to you - leave your metorsky tone for your family, here people are adults, they won't understand. Your "understand", "exclude" have nothing to do with the topic of discussion request
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                My friend, when will you prepare the whole package of documents for approval of the state contract on the state defense order, when you approve all economic standards from the military representatives, when you get a conclusion from them, when you can defend this conclusion before other military representatives and the FAS representatives in Moscow, when you work with dozens of accounts, when you’ll talk with banks that can’t transfer special accounts for three days of an elementary payment when you try to persuade your company’s suppliers to open special accounts — then your opinion on this issue will mean something to me

                Two to you laughing
                You, as a doppelganger, with a smart look, carry the next nonsense, military representatives do not approve economic standards negative
                Dear, stop fantasizing and give this nonsense to the mountain, read the powers of the military representative !!! There is not a word about the approval of economic standards !!!
                For the future to you, as patronage help- military representative, this is quality control, secrecy control and coordination of the price of the product as a representative of the customer... Do you understand the difference between agreeing on prices and approving economic standards or deciphering it for you? laughing
                And further down the list, the rest of yours, unknown near-scientific terms negative
                PS
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                then your opinion on this issue will mean something to me

                Are you interested in my opinion or not, I'm not interested. I do not impose it on you, just as I should not impose your gag.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 18: 31
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey K
                  economic representatives do not approve economic standards

                  They say, buddy, as they say :)))
                  It's just that you, as a person who "heard the ringing, but doesn't know where he is", are not aware of this.
                  Quote: Andrey K
                  military representative, this is quality control, secrecy control and price coordination of the product, as the representative of the customer ... Do you understand the difference between the coordination of prices and the approval of economic standards?

                  And the price that the military representative agrees, dear man, consists of the following. A calculation of direct costs for each specific product is made (salary of the main production workers / materials / purchased semi-finished products minus returnable waste, etc.). And to these costs, in accordance with the base, approved by the accounting policy of the enterprise, various other costs are "wound up", such as transportation and procurement costs, general and general production costs, etc. All these costs are calculated as a% of the corresponding costing item.
                  So, these% are approved by the military representatives not for each calculation separately, but once a year for a year, and this document is called "Economic standards for _____ g"
                  Quote: Andrey K
                  Are you interested in my opinion or not, I'm not interested. I do not impose it on you, just as I should not impose your gag.

                  Yes, I’m already commenting not with you, but with people who read our correspondence. So that they do not have the wrong opinion that you offer them
                  1. Andrey K
                    Andrey K 11 June 2016 18: 43
                    +5
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Yes, I’m already commenting not with you, but with people who read our correspondence. So that they do not have the wrong opinion that you offer them

                    My friend, you your understanding of the state defense order, write irrevocable in the icon - "Add a comment" yes
                    So that people who read my comment do not understand that your perverse opinion is more than mine laughing
        2. The comment was deleted.
    6. poquello
      poquello 11 June 2016 14: 36
      -3
      Quote: Andrey K
      For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it

      and everyone will be afraid, or go to technology violations, black and white cinema
      1. bovig
        bovig 13 June 2016 17: 39
        0
        Quote: poquello
        Quote: Andrey K
        For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it

        and everyone will be afraid, or go to technology violations, black and white cinema

        Specifically, I have nothing to do with the state defense order, but with the practice of "jumping over the heads of competitors and snatching an order, in the end they are not able to fulfill it" by hearsay and it exists everywhere ... So if "they are afraid", then I assure you , the country and the economy will not lose anything from this - there will be fewer fraudsters! And the violation of technology, at least in my area, occurs precisely because they are not afraid!)))
    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 15: 46
      +6
      Quote: Andrey K
      The measure is reasonable. In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently, they simply could not digest

      Why are we in a hurry to get the treasured pluses that we are not even able to read the article?
      Quote: Andrey K
      For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it

      Now read ATTENTIVELY what is written in the article
      sanctions are introduced for refusing or evading a supplier of Russian weapons and military equipment that have no domestic counterparts
      What does this have to do with those who took the order and failed to fulfill it? NO.
      The point is that if an enterprise produces certain products that the military needs, but which other enterprises do not produce, then that enterprise does not have the right to take off from the state order. And then they will punish him.
      Question. And why should this company evade state orders? It seems to be an order, it seems to be money, production volumes, etc.
      And the answer is very simple. At the end of 2015, amendments to the legislation were adopted, aimed at allegedly eradicating theft, and in fact - simply burying the defense with giblets. An inadequate system of special accounts and operations on them has been introduced. Now, if I am the lead contractor, I open a bank account. So that I can pay suppliers from this account, they must open a special account in the same bank in which I opened an account. Now imagine how it works in dynamics.
      I buy metal from a giant, say - MMK. It’s cheap because it’s a giant and its prices are appropriate. I do .... well, let's say, trailers and metal I need a lot, the supplier is quite interesting to work with me.
      And then the company comes to me and says - we are doing as many as three field stoves for the GOZ, we need 3 small caravans. What am I supposed to do? Suppose I opened an account (in the same bank as the parent company) Now, to pay from the money received, I need to come to MMK and say - guys, I want to pay you here for a few tons of metal, only now you need to open an account. In another bank. Well, in a completely different way, you don’t have that in the city either. And then I will pay you on state defense orders, yes.
      Where will they send me? They are my few tons - pah and grind, and open opd them separate special account (and there documents bale, as usual) they naturally will not. What am I supposed to do? At MMK, I can’t buy cheap metal with GOZ money, i.e. I need to either look for a more expensive supplier (who agrees to work through special accounts) or hammer in general with GOZ money and pay my own.
      If I buy more expensive metal, my economy will float. If I try to coordinate with the military representatives the increase in the price of supplying metal, they then poke my nose when checking that I buy expensive metal for the State Defense Order, and for myself it will be cheap and I will have 100500 prosecutor checks, a three-liter jar of Vaseline will not be enough. One thing remains - to buy metal for their own.
      And there are such nuances with our legislators - a carriage and a small cart.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 15: 47
        +4
        The state has managed to make it so that in many cases it is really unprofitable for an enterprise to get into a state defense order. And now, many (not the main ones, namely the suppliers of the second or third stage of cooperation) refuse to work under the state defense order - not because they are evil, but because the state and the state defense order system have managed to get rid of it to the extreme.
        And what is our state doing? Instead of admitting their mistakes and rolling back the completely inadequate system of the state defense order (the funny thing is that the system practically does NOT prevent money theft in ANY way.) They ... introduce fines for refusing to work under the state defense order :))) "I'm wrong, so come on pay me for this "
        What did Lavrov say there?
        D ..... b ....!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Andrey K
        Andrey K 11 June 2016 16: 37
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Why are we in a hurry to get the treasured pluses that we are not even able to read the article?

        Are you afraid to be late for the distribution of pluses? Do not be discouraged, if you need to ask, I'm not greedy - I will sleep laughing
        Regarding my condition or not my condition (on good terms, it is not a topic of discussion, and it’s not your business) - read, write, send, etc. - Dear, and you always start your gag by trying to pinch somehow. In addition to your personal "super-layouts", do you have something on the topic of the article? Not hypothetically - a theoretical theory invented by you: how someone pokes you somewhere and who will then check. Specifically: on the structure of the state defense order, problems associated with the state defense order, ways of solving them No.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Now read ATTENTIVELY what is written in the article

        You read between the lines laughing
        If you "carefully" pull phrases out of context and somehow, strictly in my opinion, juggle them clumsily, it does not mean that your private opinion, I note - unprofessional, but purely philistine - is "the ultimate truth" request
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 17: 28
          +1
          Quote: Andrey K
          Are you afraid to be late for the distribution of pluses?

          I have more than enough of these pluses, I do not need more.
          Quote: Andrey K
          Regarding my condition or not condition (for good it is not a topic of discussion, and it is not your mind)

          Why so? If you are making an illiterate comment that has nothing to do with the topic of the article, then pointing out your illiteracy is completely my business.
          Quote: Andrey K
          Dear, and you always start your gag by trying to pinch somehow. In addition to your personal "super-layouts", do you have something on the topic of the article? Not hypothetically - theoretical, theory invented by you

          I, so you know, I am the financial director of the enterprise performing the state defense order. And to me, unlike you, all the problems of public defense are known firsthand.
          And not for you, unable to distinguish between a fine for refusing to participate in the state defense order from a fine for non-fulfillment of the state defense order, tell me something about my "non-professional" negative
          1. poquello
            poquello 11 June 2016 17: 45
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I, so you know, I am the financial director of the enterprise performing the state defense order.

            ))))) did you like the option with your execution? skipped here
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 18: 20
              0
              Quote: poquello
              ))))) did you like the option with your execution?

              This is normal. Even Lenin, when he was told about the disappearance of the coin from circulation, said "We need to shoot more cashiers!"
              Although, to be honest ... sometimes it seems to me that shooting is better laughing
              1. poquello
                poquello 11 June 2016 18: 29
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Although, to be honest ... sometimes it seems to me that shooting is better

                sympathize with what to do
          2. Andrey K
            Andrey K 11 June 2016 18: 26
            +6
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why so? If you are making an illiterate comment that has nothing to do with the topic of the article, then pointing out your illiteracy is completely my business.

            Calm down. You didn’t try on a hat on Senka laughing
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I, so you know, I am the financial director of the enterprise performing the state defense order. And to me, unlike you, all the problems of public defense are known firsthand.
            And not for you, unable to distinguish between a fine for refusing to participate in the state defense order from a fine for non-fulfillment of the state defense order, tell me something about my "non-professional" negative

            And Napoleon is not in the next chamber, comrade "financial director of the enterprise" laughing
            Unlike some, I will not "hit the chest with the heel," but I am from the state structure, who for such "financial directors," fines for "shoals" before the state rolls out laughing
            But can you tell me at which company you made problems with public defense laughing
            Maybe I'll help you with something, because of the simplicity of my soul hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 18: 40
              -1
              Quote: Andrey K
              And Napoleon is not in the next chamber, comrade "financial director of the enterprise"

              You know better :) You obviously know firsthand about the wards :)
              Quote: Andrey K
              Unlike some, I will not "hit the chest with the heel," but I am from the state structure, who for such "financial directors," fines for "shoals" before the state rolls out

              But lying is not good. Your comments very well show how much you are not in the subject. However, you can easily dispel my doubts by naming the name of the person in charge of the public defense order in my hometown.
              Quote: Andrey K
              But can you tell me at which company you made problems with public defense

              And I did not allow them :)))
              Quote: Andrey K
              Maybe I'll help you with something, because of the simplicity of my soul

              Begging for a bribe? No, we are honest and law-abiding people laughing Do not serve laughing
              1. Andrey K
                Andrey K 11 June 2016 19: 02
                +6
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You know better :) You obviously know firsthand about the wards :)

                Guessed it. I, even as someone who knows your city (back in Soviet times, studied at one of the universities in your city), I can tell you where your local is laughing
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But lying is not good. Your comments very well show how much you are off topic.

                Very interesting statement of the phrase. Have you caught me somewhere in a lie? Or would you like to catch, but lie so hard that they overtook me laughing
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                However, you can easily dispel my doubts by naming the name of the person in charge of the public defense order in my hometown.

                This is generally super good
                You will decide on the "flight of thoughts" request Where is my DOF and where is your laughing I am certainly not the "financial director of the enterprise" request But you need to know the edges laughing
                1. poquello
                  poquello 11 June 2016 19: 15
                  -3
                  Quote: Andrey K
                  Have you caught me somewhere in a lie? Or would you like to catch, but lie so hard that they overtook me

                  Quote: Andrey K
                  But can you tell me at which company you made problems with public defense
                  Maybe I'll help you with something, because of the simplicity of my soul

                  Quote: Andrey K
                  You will decide on the "flight of thoughts" Where is my FD and where is your

                  You’ve already decided whether you’re talking here or rush about.
                  1. Andrey K
                    Andrey K 11 June 2016 19: 21
                    +6
                    Quote: poquello
                    You’ve already decided whether you’re talking here or rush about.

                    Are you special in Ponte laughing Or do you have something to add to our dispute laughing
                    Not? Well, the parable about the cowboys reminds you laughing
                    1. poquello
                      poquello 11 June 2016 19: 35
                      -3
                      Quote: Andrey K
                      Quote: poquello
                      You’ve already decided whether you’re talking here or rush about.

                      Are you special in Ponte laughing Or do you have something to add to our dispute laughing

                      )))))) no thanks, to talk about how military envoys work in another FD is the ability to have)))))
                      1. Andrey K
                        Andrey K 11 June 2016 19: 44
                        +6
                        Quote: poquello
                        )))))) no thanks, to talk about how military envoys work in another FD is the ability to have)))))

                        Do you also read between the lines? And where was at least one word said, by me or my interlocutor, that the military representatives somehow work in the Federal District?
                        You somehow ... read the comments, if you get into someone else's conversation negative
                      2. poquello
                        poquello 11 June 2016 20: 44
                        -3
                        Quote: Andrey K
                        Quote: poquello
                        )))))) no thanks, to talk about how military envoys work in another FD is the ability to have)))))

                        Do you also read between the lines? And where was at least one word said, by me or my interlocutor, that the military representatives somehow work in the Federal District?
                        ...

                        not in FD, but in FD,
                        Quote: Andrey K
                        You, as a doppelganger, with a smart look, carry the next nonsense, military representatives do not approve economic standards

                        catch a monkey, she is typing
                      3. Andrey K
                        Andrey K 11 June 2016 22: 09
                        +5
                        Yes absolutely not fundamentally in or on. Well, you jump off the topic.
                        Did your monkey run away? Taught her to knock on the keyboard? You either need to tie a plump or do not approach the computer.
                      4. poquello
                        poquello 11 June 2016 22: 38
                        0
                        good goose
                        Quote: Andrey K

                        You, as a doppelganger, with a smart look, carry the next nonsense, military representatives do not approve economic standards

                        whose words are these?
                      5. Andrey K
                        Andrey K 12 June 2016 08: 42
                        +6
                        Quote: poquello
                        good goose
                        Quote: Andrey K

                        You, as a doppelganger, with a smart look, carry the next nonsense, military representatives do not approve economic standards

                        whose words are these?

                        You wanted to say something ...laughing yourself, without copying my quotes (you do not suit me, the place is taken - I already have a secretary) ... request on the topic of the article ...hi
            2. bovig
              bovig 13 June 2016 17: 58
              0
              Quote: Andrey K
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Why so? If you are making an illiterate comment that has nothing to do with the topic of the article, then pointing out your illiteracy is completely my business.

              Calm down. You didn’t try on a hat on Senka laughing
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I, so you know, I am the financial director of the enterprise performing the state defense order. And to me, unlike you, all the problems of public defense are known firsthand.
              And not for you, unable to distinguish between a fine for refusing to participate in the state defense order from a fine for non-fulfillment of the state defense order, tell me something about my "non-professional" negative

              And Napoleon is not in the next chamber, comrade "financial director of the enterprise" laughing
              Unlike some, I will not "hit the chest with the heel," but I am from the state structure, who for such "financial directors," fines for "shoals" before the state rolls out laughing
              But can you tell me at which company you made problems with public defense laughing
              Maybe I'll help you with something, because of the simplicity of my soul hi

              + + +
              Bravo, Andrey K! I especially liked the last point! These "financial directors", in "their time", were "assigned according to their intended purpose", and quite rightly ... decades ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. bovig
        bovig 13 June 2016 16: 29
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        The point is that if an enterprise produces certain products that the military needs, but which other enterprises do not produce, then that enterprise does not have the right to take off from the state order. And then they will punish him.
        Question. And why should this company evade state orders? It seems to be an order, it seems to be money, production volumes, etc.
        And the answer is very simple. At the end of 2015, amendments to the legislation were adopted, aimed at allegedly eradicating theft, and in fact - simply burying the defense with giblets. An inadequate system of special accounts and operations on them has been introduced. Now, if I am the lead contractor, I open a bank account. So that I can pay suppliers from this account, they must open a special account in the same bank in which I opened an account. Now imagine how it works in dynamics.
        I buy metal from a giant, say - MMK. It’s cheap because it’s a giant and its prices are appropriate. I do .... well, let's say, trailers and metal I need a lot, the supplier is quite interesting to work with me.
        And then the company comes to me and says - we are doing as many as three field stoves for the GOZ, we need 3 small caravans. What am I supposed to do? Suppose I opened an account (in the same bank as the parent company) Now, to pay from the money received, I need to come to MMK and say - guys, I want to pay you here for a few tons of metal, only now you need to open an account. In another bank. Well, in a completely different way, you don’t have that in the city either. And then I will pay you on state defense orders, yes.
        Where will they send me? They are my few tons - pah and grind, and open opd them separate special account (and there documents bale, as usual) they naturally will not. What am I supposed to do? At MMK, I can’t buy cheap metal with GOZ money, i.e. I need to either look for a more expensive supplier (who agrees to work through special accounts) or hammer in general with GOZ money and pay my own.
        If I buy more expensive metal, my economy will float. If I try to coordinate with the military representatives the increase in the price of supplying metal, they then poke my nose when checking that I buy expensive metal for the State Defense Order, and for myself it will be cheap and I will have 100500 prosecutor checks, a three-liter jar of Vaseline will not be enough. One thing remains - to buy metal for their own.
        And there are such nuances with our legislators - a carriage and a small cart.


        You are here so competently painted the problem sucked out of your finger ... Or, you did not give a very good example. Essentially what you said: WHY DO YOU NEED TO TRANSFER THE METAL TO THE SUPPLIER FOR THE MONEY THAT YOU PAY BY GOZ FOR READY TRAILERS ??? Are you fooling anyone here? Of course, obviously not to accountants! If you are a large customer of metal from MMK and you buy it cheaply, then who will stop you from creating and having inventory in case of fulfilling small orders (let's say for three trailers for field kitchens under state defense orders), including with your own trade margin? BY GOZ, YOU PAY FOR THE FINISHED PRODUCT (trailers), NOT FOR THE METAL YOU NEED TO PERFORM AN ORDER !!! Fershteyn? Either you gave a moronic example, or indeed, in this situation you do not see the opportunity to steal, which is a problem for you! Minus !!!)))))
    8. The comment was deleted.
    9. ARS56
      ARS56 11 June 2016 18: 12
      +1
      State enterprises should be involved in defense. And now, foreign agents in the government are trying to privatize everything, and the remaining government officials responsible for the defense are trying to somehow force thieving owners to carry out the defense order with moderate profit. How long?
      And also the suffocating policy of the Fed branch in the Russian Federation (CBR), strangling enterprises, but enriching bankers.
    10. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 11 June 2016 19: 13
      0
      the MO contracts, as a rule, include, a magic phrase, lack of funding, is not the reason for non-fulfillment of the Civil Code, and also, the point about the creation of inventories, the "bucket" of gears, costs like five pieces, at retail, but you cannot buy a bucket, you must 5 pieces, and then five more, and so twenty times, and the "controllers" control to buy, five, and then five more, because the money, on different orders, is different, it's like savages, when money appeared - these shells little white, but these are gray, and these are generally flat.
    11. drundel861
      drundel861 11 June 2016 20: 56
      +1
      Personal responsibility, of managers, must not only be introduced in the defense industry, not targeted spending of public funds, not justified disruption, refusal, poor quality execution of an order, it is necessary not only to introduce criminal liability, but also to make it as punishable as possible, otherwise they will take on fashion state contract, the company will collapse, bankrupt. And you can’t attract anyone.
    12. bovig
      bovig 11 June 2016 21: 57
      -1
      Quote: Andrey K
      The measure is reasonable. In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently, they simply could not digest request
      Several times the president, at the bottom of the military reception, also paid attention to this request
      With a state defense order, such things should not happen a priori, one of the production chain will stumble - consider that the plan for the production of this or that product is definitely failed negative
      For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it negative
      This is just banal greed and irresponsibility. Nothing more. If the government order was thwarted, especially the defense order, jokes to the side and forward on the bunks, or to cut the forest hi
      And by the time when

      Not just reasonable, but extremely necessary ... +
      It is envisaged that the fine in this case will be from 30 thousand to 50 thousand rubles, for legal entities - from 300 thousand to 1 million rubles, ”the message says.

      The penalties are scanty, would increase them at least ten times, because we are talking about the country's defense. And, in general, what kind of profit can we talk about when fulfilling the state defense order? It is immoral to earn at the expense of the state, especially in this area! The exception is deductions to the fixed assets recovery fund and reorganization of production. But in essence - there is work, there is a wage fund (let the salary be high)! And let them earn profit on the side after fulfilling the state defense order ...
    13. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 14 June 2016 14: 53
      0
      Quote: Andrey K
      The measure is reasonable. In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently, they simply could not digest request
      Several times the president, at the bottom of the military reception, also paid attention to this request
      With a state defense order, such things should not happen a priori, one of the production chain will stumble - consider that the plan for the production of this or that product is definitely failed negative
      For me, it’s generally possible to introduce criminal liability for the heads of firms that galloped over the heads of competitors and grabbed the order, as a result of which they are not able to fulfill it negative
      This is just banal greed and irresponsibility. Nothing more. If the government order was thwarted, especially the defense order, jokes to the side and forward on the bunks, or to cut the forest hi
      And by the time when

      As far as I understand the law is not about this at all, it is about the fact that you are obliged to sign an agreement with the buyer on the terms of the buyer, smacks of idiocy, i.e. if the cost of the device is 1,5 million rubles and I am obliged to deliver it at 540 thousand, then I have to do it, it’s ridiculous that the device will hardly be good for something, no one is an enemy and the manufacturer will make its cost of 300 thousand "slightly" cutting the possibilities and resource, to light bulb level)))
  2. Barakuda
    Barakuda 11 June 2016 14: 13
    +11
    For an enterprise that produces a product ONE not one million rubles. These fines are a drop in the bucket. I would require more.
    Or nationalize completely. And then you can snicker, I want, I don’t want to.
    Well, I'm not a lawyer, maybe I didn’t understand something ..
  3. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 11 June 2016 14: 23
    +7
    Too shy to ask, but before it was impossible to accept, about 2 years ago? Or they decided to portray a tumultuous activity before the election, they decided to score points, parasites! As the air, the necessary laws are gathering dust on the shelves, and the laws for oneself are beloved are adopted only two times, salaries would be accepted in 1000-5000 readings!
  4. Barakuda
    Barakuda 11 June 2016 14: 24
    +6
    Once it was given to the "ball" - work, develop. We'll ask later. And when the VVP (and it was not for nothing that the KGB officer, and sorry Yeltsin appointed him) began to "ask", the liberals began to raise their heads and hiss. am To plant and only!
    So they went Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky..etc. . downhill.
    Not all at once. Ivan the Terrible, Peter 1, Stalin - they could not break the whole system. And to create - life is not enough.
  5. APASUS
    APASUS 11 June 2016 14: 25
    +7
    Do enterprises refuse to fulfill the state defense order? Maybe I missed something, who and where refused
  6. bad
    bad 11 June 2016 14: 27
    +6
    The State Duma is considering a bill on the introduction of fines for the supplier’s refusal of a defense contract
    ..heh..n’t fines but grace..course for laughter .. something Lavrenty Palych remembered for some reason .. laughing
  7. NDR-791
    NDR-791 11 June 2016 14: 30
    +5
    Yes ... Pribelzeli however. Think of the situation: 1939 year. Kirov Plant refuses to produce an additional batch of KV-1. What consequences will be ??? Yeah, fine 50t.r. Well, it’s for sure.
    1. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 11 June 2016 14: 40
      +3
      You are wrong Kirovsky Zavod is a legal entity in your case! from 300 thousand to 1 million rubles laughing But there are individuals
      as well as the sole performer
      Here there are 50 thousand rubles. laughing And in the days of Kotin, then of course the entire management of the plant, if not immediately, then a little later (+ time for the investigation in the authorities), would have been "fired."
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 11 June 2016 15: 14
        +1
        So that's what I'm talking about, that the devices are on. The concepts are simple - "they will not be fired from life" and it is good, but the fine - we will pay garbage. 1 ONE !!!!!! lam !!! tell Zhenya Serdyukova, or yourself, oh and laugh, I feel !!! And the term "eight years suspended" - a real (bureaucratic) punishment, did you put many people on the path?
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 11 June 2016 15: 29
      +1
      Quote: NDR-791
      Think of the situation: 1939. Kirov Plant refuses to produce an additional batch of KV-1.

      Very unsuccessful example.
      "By the order of the People's Commissar of Heavy Engineering V. Malyshev of December 30, 1939, the Kirov plant was prescribed:" ... In pursuance of the decree of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 443 ss of 19.12.1939/1940/XNUMX on the production and repair of tanks and armored vehicles in XNUMX, I order:
      1. Director of the Kirov plant comrade Zaltsman IM to organize the production of KV tanks at the Kirov plant, having previously eliminated all the defects found during the test.
      2. Start serial production from January 1, 1940 and release 1940 pieces in 50. "
      http://www.universalinternetlibrary.ru/book/61786/chitat_knigu.shtml
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 11 June 2016 14: 39
    +5
    It is difficult to regulate the CONCLUSION of a contract with fines. This will not save the enterprise if it has a refusal due to internal financial problems, but rather "drowns" it, and the production will not be all the same. Only for sure. We are talking about those who won the competition, but did not want to sign the contract. The main parameters of the contract are known before the tender. Perhaps, this is how they try to cut off intermediaries, but they should not be cut off that way, but with the expertise of the enterprise. If the enterprise does not produce anything other than paper, not be admitted to the competition.
    In general, these legislative fines are difficult. The decisions are not well thought out, populist. Let me give you an example. During the default, in 98, I found myself on a business trip to a well-known plant. And the plant management got a question - the money in the accounts "dried up", and there is a dilemma - either to buy materials, release products and continue to exist and keep both the team and its salary, or pay the salary and stop. The meeting of workers decided - the salary will wait, we will not stop the plant. And if it were now, with a new law? They would be forced to pay wages to workers, if only they would have rolled in the fines, and the plant would not have existed for 18 years. And all of his couple of thousand workers would be on the street in one moment. In the conditions of virtually no lending to industrial enterprises (except for the largest ones), the adoption of such laws is an impetus to the ruin of enterprises and to an increase in the cost of products, since the owners are obliged to include the risks of such processes in prices.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 11 June 2016 14: 45
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      to an increase in the cost of products, since the owners are obliged to lay down the risks of such processes in prices.

      This is exactly what, IMHO, and the developers of the bill are trying to reduce. When a monopolist begins to increase the cost of his products, he is sure that there is simply nowhere to buy it and "they will not go anywhere, they will take it anyway." How many angry comments were there, including at the VO, about the clearly inflated cost of equipment and weapons purchased under the SDO. And the prices were so high precisely because of the monopoly position of individual producers. I guess it's just an attempt to besiege some particularly greedy ones. what
    2. Barakuda
      Barakuda 11 June 2016 14: 48
      +5
      But what for then all sorts of different specialized and not only ministers, ministries, parasites? There is no such thing (I am not a lawyer, and not an economist, but Karl Marx read) that funds-money would suddenly disappear somewhere. If everything works. Both the customer and the supplier.
    3. poquello
      poquello 11 June 2016 15: 07
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Complicated is the matter, regulate the conclusion of the contract

      exactly! here it’s neatly necessary that for real money but not to cut wings
    4. Asadullah
      Asadullah 11 June 2016 15: 50
      +2
      This will not save the enterprise if it has a refusal due to internal financial problems, but only rather "drown" ...


      The defense enterprise is not Uncle Easy's hardware workshop in the co-op basement. Any order is accompanied by an advance payment and a financing schedule. And also stage-by-stage control. Taking into account modern life, an enterprise can dispose of an advance at its discretion, up to the point that it would play on the stock exchange. After that, write volumes of excuses overnight. To suppress all such actions, laws are being prepared. And it will "drown", well, if a big contract, good financing will "drown" the enterprise, then there it is. True, personally, I would also drown the entire administration of the enterprise, and not in a figurative sense.

      Prior to this, to this day, manual control works. When people drive, negotiate, crush, threaten. Zadolbalo. Now everything will be easier. I didn’t do it, - went to the appropriate authority, just not for pleasure, cheated, there, only to the stable. And the owners, you know, noblesse oblige, did not manage, here you have the fines, we take away the assets and sell it to the one who can handle it. With the money from the sale we cover the forfeits. All, there are no other options. Well, you can still give a quiet belly, in the form of nervous satisfaction.
  9. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 11 June 2016 14: 43
    +4
    A fine of 1 ruble for them is not a laugh, it is a mockery and betrayal. Because of the penny, the entire state order is in danger, and not only in jeopardy, to him, but when it will be done and if A. will be in time. There was no responsibility for them. A fine of at least 1 billion rubles and a period of 10 years. soldier
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah 11 June 2016 15: 56
      +2
      A fine of 1 ruble for them is not a laugh, it is a mockery and betrayal.


      Oh, but don’t need big words. Fine, this is just a sanction. Among other things, the contractual penalty shall be covered, plus performance damage shall be calculated. As a result, cosmic sums can be calculated. A legal instrument is being created for this, when in the hands of the fiscal authorities there will be an opportunity to take the enterprise away and put it under the hammer.
  10. lopvlad
    lopvlad 11 June 2016 14: 50
    +6
    bill introducing fines for the refusal of a supplier of a defense contract

    I believe that it’s not penalties that should be assigned but real time limits. A fine of up to 1 million rubles for an enterprise is really ridiculous.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 11 June 2016 16: 46
      +2
      Do you understand what this is about? I don’t get it at all. Here, for example, goes with a string bag to Vasya’s store. They approach him on the street with an offer to conclude a GOZ contract, and he twists his finger at the temple and goes on. Then to him with flashing lights and into the monkey. A month later, he finds out that he owes 50 sput ... So it is written in the law?
  11. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 11 June 2016 14: 51
    +6
    Quote: RESEARCHER
    It would be better to limit or better isolate commercial banks from defense financing. And then no alpha banks will begin to think of bankrupt Uralvagozavod.

    There was a law and it worked until 2003., Then the enterprises of walkers in the Duma themselves launched, citing the fact that commercial banks give loans at a lower rate. Here is the result.
  12. balabol
    balabol 11 June 2016 14: 53
    +5
    I did not understand the procedure for the operation of the law.
    The state order is implemented through tenders and tenders. The tenderer admitted to the auction during the verification makes a special payment for participation, which is not refundable if the winning company does not sign the contract. The contract with all the conditions is part of the tender documentation. Those entering into the tender all the conditions for its implementation are clear to the participants. Thus, the “refuseniks” were already fined. Maybe some companies not participating in the auction want to force them to work in unfavorable conditions for them. And what will be the result? Imagine that officials come to a commercial store and demand that something be done with a minus in money. Will you get a positive result?
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah 11 June 2016 16: 02
      +3
      Maybe some companies that are not bidding want to force them to work in unfavorable conditions for them.


      Or maybe they want to exclude from the tender those participants who want to win it in any way, and then resell orders on their own terms? smile There are many options. And the procedure is simple, the operational scope for manipulations is narrowed. Which, if you are in the know, dominate the defense market today.
  13. excomandante
    excomandante 11 June 2016 14: 54
    +8
    It would be better to nationalize all enterprises important for the defense industry.
    1. CORNET
      CORNET 11 June 2016 15: 47
      +1
      Quote: excomandante
      It would be better to nationalize all enterprises important for the defense industry.

      Labeled did everything to prevent this from happening later .... hi
      1. weksha50
        weksha50 11 June 2016 18: 43
        +2
        Quote: CORNET
        Labeled did everything to prevent this from happening later ...



        Tagged only initiated the beginning ... and already furious, energetic followers then how many suddenly appeared ...
  14. Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 11 June 2016 14: 57
    +1
    The main thing is not to overdo it.
  15. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 11 June 2016 15: 00
    -1
    In addition to the fine, this company or private owner should no longer be allowed to defense orders, or allowed, but on so-called fixed conditions, the price is set by the Moscow Region and does not change.
  16. Sergey333
    Sergey333 11 June 2016 15: 00
    +7
    Want to bust factories? At first, for 30 years, some models of products do not buy, then get out with state orders for 1 - 2 pieces.
  17. cap
    cap 11 June 2016 15: 06
    0
    "The same sanctions are provided for" for refusal or evasion of a supplier (performer, contractor), who, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of state defense order, occupies a dominant position, from concluding an agreement necessary to fulfill the state defense order, if the conclusion of such an agreement is mandatory for the specified person. "

    "... if the conclusion of such an agreement is binding on the said person."
    Or maybe the head immediately find an article ... It would be more correct.
  18. Next
    Next 11 June 2016 15: 15
    +4
    Quote: poquello
    and they will buy a military representative


    But this is from the area "is there life on Mars." Because the military representative's responsibility is personal and, I think that, up to criminal and rightly so.
    1. poquello
      poquello 11 June 2016 15: 23
      -2
      Quote: Next
      Quote: poquello
      and they will buy a military representative


      But this is from the area "is there life on Mars." Because the military representative's responsibility is personal and, I think that, up to criminal and rightly so.

      yeah, when the dill tanks were falling apart was there life on Mars
      1. weksha50
        weksha50 11 June 2016 18: 45
        +2
        Quote: poquello
        yeah when the dill tanks were falling apart was life on mars


        We are now talking about Russia or Ukraine, that is, Mars, say ???
        1. poquello
          poquello 11 June 2016 19: 26
          -1
          Quote: weksha50
          Quote: poquello
          yeah when the dill tanks were falling apart was life on mars


          We are now talking about Russia or Ukraine, that is, Mars, say ???

          it’s just in a similar situation it doesn’t matter, there were people who knew what kind of tricks they could pull up, but nevertheless allowed
  19. Stinger
    Stinger 11 June 2016 15: 24
    +4
    If the terms of the contract for state defense order are unprofitable for the enterprise, then no fines will help.
    1. bovig
      bovig 13 June 2016 18: 58
      0
      Quote: Stinger
      If the terms of the contract for state defense order are unprofitable for the enterprise, then no fines will help.

      The terms of the contract for state defense orders cannot be unprofitable a priori. This is nonsense! They can only lower the rate of profit, moreover, not economically justified, but proceeding only from the greedy motives of a monopoly producer ...
  20. VOEVODA
    VOEVODA 11 June 2016 15: 35
    +3
    Still, this law would be extended to suppliers of materials and semi-finished products for state defense orders.
  21. balabol
    balabol 11 June 2016 15: 47
    +4
    There is a feeling that such a law is trying to cover up incompetence among the customer.
    Tender cannot appear from the ceiling, as customers cannot see the fair price of the order on the ceiling. In real life, the price of a government contract is taken for a reason. This is a huge and painstaking work of the customer and potential suppliers, especially if he is the only one. Discussion and very thorough verification of the justification of prices for both the final product and accessories. Accounting and verification of subcontractors and contractors. Military representatives of various military receptions are involved, the mass of papers and permissions is coordinated. The laws define the returns that only suppliers can afford. The volume of documents form the basis of the tender for government procurement. And if everything is done correctly, there will be no refusal to participate in the competition.
    As a rule, conflicts happen with an elementary inability to work. It is necessary for the customer to be more competent than the supplier in order to prove his case, but this is the work of the MO units responsible for the order. Verkhoglyadov and ignoramus will not be circled around the finger only by the lazy.
  22. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 11 June 2016 15: 49
    0
    Quote: Andrey K
    In past years, when placing government orders, firms and firms pulled so much on themselves that subsequently, they simply could not digest
    This is not about non-fulfillment of the contract, but about refusal of it! Here it is, an eructation at the Privatization of the 90s!
  23. Signaller
    Signaller 11 June 2016 15: 51
    0
    For me, and based on extensive experience in competitive work, this is insanity. How can I get a penalty for not participating in the competition. ???? You can just look. You sign a contract when it is unprofitable. ??? Like They want to be delivered for a million, and the cost price is 2 lemas. Well, which one would do that. ?????? It is only state-owned enterprises that can go for it, with the support of ministries. A watchmaker ???? Yes to him on a drum. No profit, no order. And that GOZ is similar. We drove through. Nothing they can do.
    1. bovig
      bovig 13 June 2016 19: 15
      0
      Quote: Signaller
      For me, and based on extensive experience in competitive work, this is insanity. How can I get a penalty for not participating in the competition. ????

      "The amendments, in particular, introduce sanctions for the refusal or evasion of a supplier of Russian weapons and military equipment, who have no domestic counterparts, as well as the sole contractor or contractor, determined by the legislative acts of the Russian Federation, the president and the government, from the conclusion of a mandatory state contract for the state defense order. "
      What competition are you talking about? If about the contest "Miss Universe" then, yes - it's complete insanity!)))
  24. VOEVODA
    VOEVODA 11 June 2016 16: 01
    -1
    It is necessary to make work on the defense industry, even if it is unprofitable for the enterprise. It should be like an appeal, an honorable duty. With all those who disagree, carry out certain work. We can do it if we want.
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 11 June 2016 18: 49
      0
      Quote: VOEVODA
      It is necessary to make work on the defense industry, even if it is unprofitable for the enterprise. It should be like an appeal, an honorable duty.With all those who disagree, carry out certain work. With us, they can if they want to.



      Um ... you cannot feed the honorable duty of family children, you will not shoe ...

      Another question - in this case, it is better for the state to provide certain financial support to the enterprise from its reserves ... Still, it will be much better than allocating billions to support commercial banks ...
    2. Wasiliy1985
      Wasiliy1985 11 June 2016 21: 38
      +1
      Talk about "loss" and "honorable duty":
      - with a fitter-assembler of JSC "SRC named after Makeev";
      - with the President of JSC "AK" Transneft ".
      You will see amazing similarities in approaches.
      There will be both "loss" and "honorary duty".
      Only the difference in the figures of income (and loss) of one and the other is striking!
      Moreover, the life of the entire state depends on the work of the first no less than on the work of the second ..
      So, infa for thought.
    3. bovig
      bovig 13 June 2016 19: 18
      0
      Quote: VOEVODA
      It is necessary to make work on the defense industry, even if it is unprofitable for the enterprise. It should be like an appeal, an honorable duty. With all those who disagree, carry out certain work. We can do it if we want.

      No, if it is unprofitable, then it’s impossible ... Therefore: “the bill establishes the procedure for the formation and payment of the material and technical reserves created for the implementation of the GOZ, and clarifies the spending arrived the contract executors in the implementation of the intermediate stages, establishes the responsibility of the co-executors of state defense orders, occupying a dominant position in the market ”
  25. balabol
    balabol 11 June 2016 16: 14
    +3
    The company, given modern life, can dispose of the advance payment at its discretion, up to the point that it would play on the stock exchange.

    Now the enterprise cannot spend the money of the State Order at its discretion. The money initially goes to a special account in one of about 10 banks certified by the state for servicing the State Order. Money can be withdrawn from this account only to the same special accounts of other subcontractor enterprises. Special services monitor transactions depending on the amount of payment up to about 4 levels of contractors. Of course, we are talking about large projects.
  26. dr. sem
    dr. sem 11 June 2016 16: 15
    +1
    "The State Duma is considering a bill on the introduction of fines for refusal of a supplier from a defense contract"
    In the State Duma, as well as in the State Administration, it seems that the finished d..il’s are sitting in which instead of brains a pack of bucks / euros ....
    Do not fine - the highest measure! Although we are humanoid, we have a moratorium ... Well, then equate to STATE CHANGE and to the zone of leaders and major shareholders such enterprises ...
    We have all been ridiculed with fines for bribes and WHAT?
  27. termite
    termite 11 June 2016 16: 26
    +1
    this is the market this is the market relationship laughing
  28. Ros 56
    Ros 56 11 June 2016 16: 54
    +2
    What nonsense is this article. In fact, the supplier is determined by tender, who proposed more favorable conditions, the winner. And if I do not want to participate in the tender, who the hell will force me to do it, what does the Administrative Code and the State Duma have to do with it. But if you won and do not conclude a contract, then you are added to the list of unscrupulous suppliers and you do not have the right, I do not remember a year or three, to participate in other tenders or tenders. And regarding fines, this condition can be immediately scored as a separate item in the tender documentation and all matters. Just need to check how this is consistent with the laws of the Federal Law No. 223 and Federal Law No. 44 and that’s all.
    1. bovig
      bovig 13 June 2016 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      What nonsense is this article. In fact, the supplier is determined by tender, who proposed more favorable conditions, the winner. And if I do not want to participate in the tender, who the hell will force me to do it, what does the Administrative Code and the State Duma have to do with it. But if you won and do not conclude a contract, then you are added to the list of unscrupulous suppliers and you do not have the right, I do not remember a year or three, to participate in other tenders or tenders. And regarding fines, this condition can be immediately scored as a separate item in the tender documentation and all matters. Just need to check how this is consistent with the laws of the Federal Law No. 223 and Federal Law No. 44 and that’s all.

      "The amendments, in particular, introduce sanctions for the refusal or evasion of a supplier of Russian weapons and military equipment, who have no domestic counterparts, as well as a single contractor or contractor, determined by the legislative acts of the Russian Federation, the president and the government, from the conclusion of a mandatory state contract for the state defense order. "
      There is no tender, because SOMEONE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT!)
  29. Chulman
    Chulman 11 June 2016 18: 51
    +3
    It’s such an ASCUTION that the State Duma is only developing fines ... for everything that catches your eye !!! laughing
  30. vlad_vlad
    vlad_vlad 11 June 2016 21: 06
    +1
    Quote: Teberii
    This is correct. The country's defense should not suffer from people who want only to get money.


    class! I respect lovers of the common good at the expense of others.

    Tomorrow they will personally come to you and "order" a flying tank. Don't you take it? fine. And what - the country should not suffer from the fact that you want a salary and you do not know how to make a flying tank.
    1. bovig
      bovig 13 June 2016 19: 33
      0
      Quote: vlad_vlad
      Quote: Teberii
      This is correct. The country's defense should not suffer from people who want only to get money.


      class! I respect lovers of the common good at the expense of others.

      Tomorrow they will personally come to you and "order" a flying tank. Don't you take it? fine. And what - the country should not suffer from the fact that you want a salary and you do not know how to make a flying tank.

      You are currently distorting and trying to interpret your own "conclusions" as a fact - only shullers do this ... Or can you indicate a specific article of the law (as proof of the truth of your words) that allows such a variant?)))
  31. Wasiliy1985
    Wasiliy1985 11 June 2016 21: 11
    +3
    As I understand it, a penalty is imposed if the given enterprise is the only one that can fulfill this order, but at the same time it refuses public procurement due to the fact that it has more profitable third-party orders .. So?
    What's so surprising? Eka is unseen !!
    What tensed then?
    When necessary, in the West, their "commerce" worked exclusively in the national interests.
    Examples of requisitioning military equipment, being built for third-party states, in favor of their state in times of tense international situation, the very same England has a dime a dozen !!
    At the same time, the "enlightened" navigators did not bother themselves with argumentation - "this is required by the interests of the English crown!" - that's all !!!
    And they wanted to sneeze at the bleating of Adam Smith about the "magic hand of the market"!
    More precisely, Adam Smith is for "suckers".
    And for serious guys - transnational corporations supported by serious military force !!!
    If only MONEY was in the one who needs it! (As THEY think)
  32. imugn
    imugn 11 June 2016 21: 56
    +1
    Penalties, fines, fines ... The more ill-conceived laws, the more fines
  33. atesterev
    atesterev 11 June 2016 22: 31
    0
    Have any of them heard of counterparties? But there are contractors and the fifth and even the tenth ...
  34. Zomanus
    Zomanus 12 June 2016 04: 01
    +1
    Mobilization of industry for the needs of state protection ...
    Here I think for enterprises the main hemorrhagic in knocking out funds for defense orders.
    Therefore, they try not to get involved.
    And if they change the financing system, freeing it from "suckers",
    knocking themselves kickbacks, the system may work.
    The idea is generally true, it remains to be finalized.
  35. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 June 2016 19: 30
    0
    Quote: Ros 56
    But if you won and do not conclude a contract, then you are added to the list of unscrupulous suppliers and you do not have the right, I do not remember a year or three, to participate in other tenders or tenders.

    Here, the law is directed against such winners, the enterprise (entrepreneur) having the technology or the product goes to tender, wins the contract and falls asleep, and the money (prepayment) is received and supposedly in production and cannot be returned, and time goes on, (money in the end return), and allies are waiting ...