pk10六码滚雪球图片

The only government procurement website designated by the Ministry of Finance

Service Hotline: 400-810-1996

You are here: Home » Guiding Cases

Guiding Case No. 9: Complaint about XX Warehouse Qualification Bidding Project

来源: 中国政府采购网打印10:45, November 20, 2017 Source: China Government Procurement Network [ Print ]

Key words   量化指标/分值设置/评审标准 Review factors / quantitative indicators / score settings / review criteria

Case highlights

If the comprehensive scoring method is adopted in the government procurement review, the score setting in the review standard shall correspond to the quantitative index of the review factor. On the one hand, the index of the review factor should be quantifiable, and the index that cannot be quantified cannot be used as the review factor. In the refinement and quantification of review factors, it is generally inappropriate to use expressions such as "excellent", "good", "medium", and "general" that do not have clear judgment standards and are likely to cause ambiguity. On the other hand, the scores of the review criteria should also be quantified. The indicators of the review factors are quantified as intervals. The scores of the review standards must also be quantified to intervals.

号)第十九条的规定予以处理。 If the score setting in the evaluation standard does not correspond to the quantitative index of the evaluation factor, it shall be in accordance with Article 36 of the Government Procurement Law and Article 19 of the "Measures for Handling Complaints of Government Procurement Suppliers" (Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 20 ). Provisions to deal with.

Related Laws

Articles 36 and 71 of the Government Procurement Law of the People's Republic of China

Articles 34 and 68 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Implementation of the Government Procurement Law

号)第十九条 Article 19 of "Measures for Handling Complaints of Government Procurement Suppliers" (Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 20 )

Basic case

委托代理机构A就该单位“ XX仓库资格招标项目”(以下称本项目)进行公开招标。 Purchaser B entrusted agency A to conduct public bidding on the unit's " XX warehouse qualification bidding project" (hereinafter referred to as this project).322日,代理机构A发布招标公告,后组织了开标、评标工作。 On March 22 , 2017 , Agent A issued a tender announcement, and then organized bid opening and evaluation. 公司为第一中标候选人。 After evaluation, the bid evaluation committee recommended Company D as the first successful candidate.412日,代理机构A发布中标公告。 On April 12 , 2017 , Agency A issued a tender announcement.418日, C公司向代理机构A提出质疑。 On April 18 , 2017 , Company C questioned Agency A.

5 19 C公司向财政部提起投诉。 On May 19 , 2017 , Company C filed a complaint with the Ministry of Finance. 公司称, 1.本项目评分标准设置不合法,对供应商实行差别待遇或者歧视待遇。 Company C stated that: 1. The setting of the scoring standards for this project was illegal, and differential or discriminatory treatment was applied to suppliers. 评标过程未对供应商所应具备的条件进行公正公平审查,主要依据是: D公司仅为新成立的企业,但中标公告显示其在商务得分中高出了C公司近6分,在技术评分中高出了C公司近20分。 2. The bid evaluation process did not conduct a fair and fair review of the conditions that the supplier should have, mainly based on the following: Company D was only a newly established company, but the announcement of the successful bid showed that it was nearly 6 points higher than Company C in the business score. The technical score was nearly 20 points higher than that of Company C.

称: 1.本项目评分标准的设置是根据采购人B以往仓储的实际情况等所提出的要求,以实现仓储财物的安全性和便利性。 In this regard, Agency A stated that: 1. The scoring criteria for this project are set based on the requirements of buyer B's previous warehousing situation in order to achieve the safety and convenience of warehousing property. 公司和D公司在商务得分上的差分,主要是招标文件要求提供“投标人室外仓库情况”,而C公司未提供该情况;技术得分的差分,主要是招标文件“投标人室内仓库情况”要求“存放货物在1楼”,而C公司可提供的存货地点不位于1楼。 2. The difference in the commercial score between company C and company D is mainly because the bidding documents require "the situation of the bidder's outdoor warehouse", but company C has not provided the situation; "Case" requires that "the goods are stored on the first floor", and the inventory location that Company C can provide is not on the first floor.

公司于2017324日购买了本项目的招标文件。 The Ministry of Finance has determined that Company C purchased the bidding documents for this project on March 24 , 2017 . 、投标人室内仓库情况”的评分细则要求:“根据投标人室内仓库(仓库配套有室内仓储场地不少于7000平方米、高台仓、有监控摄像、存放货物在1楼)横向比较:优得35-45分,中得20-34分,一般得0-19分(以仓库产权证明或租赁合同为准)”,单项分数/权重为45分。 The bidding document technical review form " 3. Bidder's indoor warehouse situation" scoring details require: "According to the bidder's indoor warehouse (the warehouse has an indoor storage space of not less than 7000 square meters, a high warehouse, a surveillance camera, and the goods are stored in 1 Floor) Horizontal comparison: 35-45 points for excellent, 20-34 points for middle, 0-19 points generally (based on the warehouse property certificate or lease contract), and a single point / weight of 45 points. 、投标人室外仓库情况”的评分细则要求:“根据投标人室外仓库场地(仓库配套有室外仓储场地不少于3000平方米、有围墙进行物理隔离、有监控摄像、有保安巡逻)的情况横向比较:优得35-40分,中得20-34分,一般得0-19分(以仓库产权证明或租赁合同为准)”,单项分数/权重为40分。 The bidding document business evaluation form " 6. Bidder's outdoor warehouse situation" scoring rules require: "According to the bidder's outdoor warehouse site (the warehouse has an outdoor storage site of not less than 3,000 square meters, physical isolation with fences, surveillance cameras, With security patrol) horizontal comparison: 35-40 points for excellent, 20-34 points for middle, 0-19 points for general (based on warehouse property certificate or lease contract), single score / weight of 40 points. A government procurement contract has been signed for this project, but it has not been fulfilled.

process result

属于无效投诉事项。 The Ministry of Finance made a complaint and supervision and inspection decision: According to Article 52 of the "People's Republic of China Government Procurement Law" and Article 53 of the "Implementation Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Government Procurement Law," Complaint 1 is an invalid complaint. .

号)第十七条第(二)项的规定,投诉事项2缺乏事实依据,驳回投诉。 According to Article 17 (2) of the Measures for Handling Complaints of Government Procurement Suppliers (Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 20 ), the complaint item 2 lacked the factual basis, and the complaint was rejected.

号)第十九条第(二)项的规定,决定撤销合同,责令采购人B废标,重新开展采购活动。 According to Article 36 (1) (2) of the "People's Republic of China Government Procurement Law" and "Measures for Handling Complaints of Government Procurement Suppliers" (Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 20 ) Article 19 (2) Provided that it decided to cancel the contract and ordered purchaser B to cancel the bid and restart the procurement activities.

和代理机构A限期改正,并对代理机构A作出警告的行政处罚。 Aiming at the problem that the score setting in the evaluation criteria of this project does not correspond to the quantitative indicators of the evaluation factors, according to Article 71 of the "People's Republic of China Government Procurement Law" and Article 68 of the "Implementation Regulations of the People's Republic of China Government Procurement Law" According to the provisions of the Article, the purchaser B and the agency A are ordered to make corrections within a time limit, and the administrative agency A is warned of administrative penalty.

Handling reasons

属于对招标文件的异议。 The Ministry of Finance believes that complaint item 1 is an objection to the bidding documents. 公司购买招标文件的时间为2017324日,应自收到招标文件之日起7个工作日内提出质疑,而C公司提出质疑的时间( 2017418日)已超过法定质疑期限。 The time for company C to purchase the bidding documents was March 24 , 2017. Questions should be raised within 7 working days from the date of receipt of the bidding documents, and the time for company C 's challenge ( April 18 , 2017 ) had exceeded the legal Questioning deadline. 属于无效投诉事项。 Therefore, Complaint 1 is an invalid complaint.

,由于C公司投标文件所显示的租赁仓库位于3456楼,不符合本项目招标文件“投标人室内仓库情况”中“存放货物在1楼”的要求。 Regarding Complaint 2 , because the leased warehouse shown in the bidding documents of Company C was located on the 3rd , 4th , 5th , and 6th floors, it did not meet the requirements of “storing goods on the first floor” in the bidding document “Indoor Warehouse Situation of Bidders”. 缺乏事实依据。 Complaint 2 lacks factual basis.

分,中得20-34分,一般得0-19分”等,存在分值设置未与评审因素的量化指标相对应的问题,违反了《中华人民共和国政府采购法实施条例》第三十四条第四款的规定。 In addition, the evaluation criteria for the bidding documents of this project are set as "excellent 35-45 points, middle 20-34 points, generally 0-19 points", etc., there is a problem that the setting of points does not correspond to the quantitative index of the evaluation factors Violates the provisions of Article 34, paragraph 4, of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Government Procurement Law of the People's Republic of China. .

(This article is not authorized, any media and units may not reprint or reproduce at will, otherwise, legal liability will be investigated.)