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 » Expert Perspectives

Liu Yali: It ’s the one who decides whether to invest in both.

来源: 政府采购信息报/网打印July 05, 2019 09:06 Source: Government Procurement Information Newspaper / Internet [ Print ]

A resource construction project of a certain mechanical and electrical college is divided into two packages for public bidding. The purchaser has high requirements for the construction period, so it is stipulated in the bidding document that "two contracts are not invested at the same time". By the tender deadline, a total of 4 suppliers had submitted tender documents. After review, the first successful candidates for both packages were company A. According to the provisions of the bidding documents, Company A could only become a successful supplier of one package. So, which package is the winning supplier for Company A? Who has the final say?
The first opinion is that it is up to the purchaser. According to the provisions of Article 43 of the Implementation Regulations of the Government Procurement Law: The purchaser shall determine the successful bidders or suppliers in order within 5 working days from the date of receiving the review report. It can be seen that the law gives the purchaser the power to determine the winning supplier, and the purchaser should determine which package in Company A.
The second opinion is that when disputes occur between the two parties to the contract, they should be handled in accordance with the principle of "writers of reverse contracts". That is to say, according to the principle that is most unfavorable to the writer, that is, according to the principle that is beneficial to Company A. A can freely choose to be the first successful supplier of a certain package, and waive the candidate qualification of another package.
These are the two approaches that are commonly adopted in the current part-time investment but not part-time operation. In fact, according to international practice, there is a third option-"price comparison". I think this approach is more reasonable. That is to say, after all the winning candidates of each package are exhausted, the final winning bidder of each package shall be determined based on the principle of the lowest total winning price of the relevant packages. In this case, the bidder has paid the least price, but has completed the contracts of all relevant packages, which is very efficient and reasonable.
Make a hypothesis. In the above case, package 1, the first successful candidate A quotes 1 million yuan, the second successful candidate B quotes 1.03 million yuan; package 2, the first successful candidate A quotes 1.5 million yuan, and the second successful candidate C quotes 1. 1.55 million yuan. It is determined that Bidder A wins package 1 and the total winning price of the two packages is 1 million yuan + 1.55 million yuan, totaling 2.55 million yuan. If it is determined that Bidder A wins package 2, the total winning price of the two packages is 1.5 million yuan + 1.03 million yuan, a total of 2.53 million yuan. These two alternatives have the lowest winning bids in total: Bidder A wins 2 and Bidder B wins 1 (see Annex I)
When bidder A is rated as the first successful candidate in more than 3 packages at the same time, or two bidders are determined as the first successful candidate in 2 packages, the permutations and combinations that need to be calculated will still be a bit more. However, in the end, the total winning price of each package must be calculated, and the final winner of each package is determined based on the principle of the lowest total price.
Except for the bidding for supply and fixed-point services, the number of successful candidates for each package should not exceed three. If the solution with the lowest total purchase price is adopted, the above-mentioned "ranking candidate ranking" may be changed to "comprehensive score ranking". That is, it is stipulated in the bidding documents that each bidder in this bidding can only win at most one package. When any bidder is rated as the first overall score, the principle of the lowest total bid price of the relevant packages will be used as the principle to determine which The first successful candidate in a pack. Naturally, another package should also recommend the bidder with the second highest overall score as the first successful candidate for the package. When the bid of the other package scored by the bidder with the second score of the relevant package has been determined as the first successful candidate, the bidder with the third score will be replenished, and so on. Regardless of the juxtaposition of the overall score ranking of each package, the bid evaluation committee will use the principle of the lowest total winning price to determine the first successful candidate for each package.
When the first successful candidate of any package gives up the winning bid, or fails to fulfill the contract due to force majeure, fails to submit a performance bond as required by the bidding documents, or is found to have illegal acts affecting the bidding result, etc., and does not meet the conditions for winning the bidding, One will re-tender the package.
What we are discussing here is the stipulation in the World Bank's bid evaluation guidelines. The premise of using this method is to use the lowest bid evaluation method to evaluate bids, that is, the bidders ranked later have higher bids. For projects evaluated by the comprehensive scoring method, if this method is to be used, it must be specified in the evaluation method, because the bids of the top bidders at this time are not necessarily lower than the bidders of the bottom .
(Author: Liu Yali government procurement information system president and editor of the newspaper)

related articles