Standardization approaches for «production audits» (verification of manufacturer, contractor, and performer data reliability in procurement bids) and development prospects for a shared results exchange platform in the Russian Federation

DOI: 10.33917/mic-4.123.2025.47-61

This article examines socially consequential issue of false information provision by participants in public procurement processes. The problem originates from two primary sources: first, deficiencies in public procurement legislation – particularly the absence of a formal definition of «false information», standardized procedures for its detection and documentation, and statutory penalties for its submission. Second, it emerges from deeply ingrained negative behavioral patterns among procurement participants. These detrimental practices not only compromise the integrity and outcomes of procurement procedures but also adversely affect the national economy/

The authors and key stakeholders regard «production audits» (data authenticity verification) as a crucial mechanism for safeguarding the interests of conscientious participants and society overall. These audits represent an effective instrument for mitigating information risks (factual misrepresentation) through validation of production resource data and operational capacity claims.

By year-end 2024, industry representatives from nuclear, space, telecommunications, aerospace, and automotive sectors had developed the «Cross-Sector Standard for Verifying Manufacturer, Contractor, and Service Provider Data Reliability». This framework institutes: uniform assessment methodologies for production capacities; structured dispute resolution processes; and standardized reporting templates. Additionally, it creates the necessary foundation for implementing a future secure («shared-access») platform to exchange «production audits» results, thereby improving transparency and operational efficiency across procurement systems.

References: 

1. Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 15.01.2018 No. 304-KG17-20134 in case No. A67-4506/2016. URL: https://legalacts.ru/sud/opredelenie-verkhovnogo-suda-rf-ot-15012018-n-304-kg17-20134-po-delu-n-a67-45062016/

2. Gapanovich V.A., Shubinsky I.B., Pronevich O.B., Shved V.E. Risk management system of large companies. Risk assessment practice at Russian Railways and development directions. Problems of risk analysis. 2018;15(2):6–21.

3. Federal Law «On the Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities» dated July 18, 2011 No. 223-FZ (as amended on August 8, 2024). URL: https://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/main/public/document/

4. FAS: the use of exchange indicators in public procurement will allow saving budget funds. Federal Antimonopoly Service. October 10, 2024. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/33508

5. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 23, 2024 No. 1285 «On Amendments to Certain Acts of the Government of the Russian Federation». URL: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202409230016?index=16

6. Register of false information submitted by procurement participants. Federal Antimonopoly Service. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/pages/reestr_kompanij/

7. Register of false information submitted by procurement participants. Federal Antimonopoly Service. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/pages/reestr_kompanij_nedostoverno

8. Bill No. 607800-8 On Amendments to Article 104 of the Federal Law «On the Contract System in the Sphere of Procurement of Goods, Works, Services for Ensuring National and Municipal Needs» (regarding the prohibition of participation in procurement by unscrupulous suppliers). System for ensuring legislative activity of the State Automated System «Lawmaking». URL: https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/607800-8

9. Adigyuzelov K.A. Problems of combating the use of unreliable information in procurement. State order. Legal review. Collection of articles. M.: Educational and methodological center of the FAS Russia, 2024. p. 26.

10. Akerlof G.A. The Market for «Lemons»: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1970;84(3):488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.

11. Auzan A.A. Trust as a factor and instrument of socio-economic development. Report at the anniversary meeting of the Russian Association of Business Education. 03/18/2021. URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/ynakGF-SGr4

12. Williamson O.I. Behavioral assumptions of modern economic analysis. THESIS. 1993;3:39−49.

13. Uniform industry guidelines for data reliability audit. Rosatom. URL: https://zakupki.rosatom.ru/?mode=CMSArticle&action/

14. Safokhina M.A. Organization and methods of production audit. Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Econ.) dissertation. Moscow, 2007. pp. 3–4.

15. Survey on the burden on business from production audits. 06/07/2024. Union of Purchasers. URL: https://www.szrus.ru/poll_1

16. Joint Alliance for Corporate Social Responsibility. URL: http://jac-initiative.com/

17. National Bureau of Credit Histories. URL: https://www.nbki.ru/

18. Russian Union of Auto Insurers. URL: https://www.autoins.ru/