The main body, methods and requirements of the scoring method are specified. The purchaser or government procurement management department entrusts centralized procurement agencies and social agencies to purchase the required projects. After designing the technical scheme, specific requirements and objective effects of the project, the procurement executing agency will formulate bidding and scoring methods accordingly. The entity that sets the scoring method should be the purchasing executing agency, which cannot be operated by the purchaser. Even if some purchasers provide rough scoring methods, they should be included in the scoring method sequence of purchasing execution agencies for normative modification. Of course, the purchaser can put forward many opinions and suggestions on bid evaluation in advance, such as low price requirements, technical performance and price weight, and the proportion of price in the total score. On this basis, the procurement organization designs the specific terms of the scoring method and determines the detailed score. At the same time, we know that there are specific provisions on price sharing, which should be set according to the range of price scores of goods and services stipulated by the Ministry of Finance 18, and can only be appropriately adjusted according to the wishes of buyers within the effective range. The first draft of the scoring method shall be reviewed by the agent of the procurement unit and its leader, and the leader shall sign and approve the procedure, and affix the official seal of the unit leader. The insider of bid evaluation content should be strictly limited to a certain range, and confidentiality is very important to maintain the quality of bid evaluation and work order. Some places may think that there is no need to keep the scoring method confidential, and even it should be clearly listed in the tender. Although it has achieved the effect of openness, fairness and transparency, it cannot be ruled out that some suppliers are suspected of setting up bidding documents for the terms of the scoring method, and the risk of fraud has increased sharply. For some bidding timber with fewer suppliers and relatively concentrated bidders, there may be collusion risk, which increases the difficulty and workload of bid evaluation. Of course, even if the grading method is made public, there are some unexpected factors. As long as the key contents such as brand, price, scheme quality and technical strength reported by various suppliers are not leaked, it is still unknown among bidders. The announcement of the scoring method should be made according to the specific situation. If the purchasing organization can't reach a certain strength, it's best to keep it secret. Confidentiality is for suppliers, and the real bid evaluation process must be carried out under the supervision of many parties, and you can't do things in the dark under the guise of confidentiality. In order to avoid interference, it is necessary to close the bid evaluation site. It is a layman's talk to arbitrarily think that the bid evaluation process must be open, and it is also an extreme behavior that does not respect the laws of government procurement. As for whether the scoring method should be reported to the government procurement management office for approval in advance, the author thinks it is unnecessary. If conditions permit, it is really necessary and effective, and the scoring filing system is feasible, but the government procurement supervision department shall not interfere with the normal government procurement behavior. The setting of the scoring method is the responsibility of the procurement executing agency, and no organization or individual may interfere. It seems that because the scoring method is unreasonable, the on-site supervisors of bid evaluation put forward the decision to reject the bid. In order to make the scoring method scientific and reasonable, it is necessary to evaluate and demonstrate the scoring method, but confidentiality and public demonstration are contradictory. How to solve this contradiction is worthy of serious study by purchasing institutions.
Although the specific content of scoring methods is very different and difficult to control, the main principles can still be clearly and conscientiously implemented, and these principles should be universal and feasible. The setting of scoring method shall at least meet the following principles:
The first is pertinence. The setting of scoring method cannot be broken out of thin air and become a castle in the air. Must be closely related to the contents of the tender. Matters not required in the tender cannot be used as a key component of the grading content. In order to prevent fraud caused by asymmetric information, the tender must specify the technical requirements, qualification guarantee, response degree and specific content, year of business performance, amount, region, field and even quantity, technical personnel allocation standards, specific terms of after-sales service, etc. , reflecting the operability. The scoring method should be carried out according to the specific requirements of the tender, and some demonstrations of bidders' abilities that are not mentioned in the tender can only be considered in a small amount and cannot be used as the main indicators. Bidding documents and scoring methods complement each other and should promote and improve each other.
The second is the consistency of negotiations. Although the scoring method should be strictly set for bidding documents, the specific details, including the emphasis of scoring, the display of bidding intention, the criteria for selecting suppliers, the market situation in the bidding field, the supplier's ability and other contents related to the purchaser's subjective intention, should be fully displayed in the scoring method, which requires the procurement institution to combine the regularity and standardization of the scoring method with the purchaser's subjective tendency as far as possible when setting the scoring method. Generally speaking, the procurement executing agency should fully respect the subjective assumptions of the purchaser and integrate their normal assumptions into the scoring method. But this is not a complete accommodation, but a consensus reached on the premise of observing laws and regulations. If the price score requires 70 points or higher, it is obviously inclined to the evaluation standard of a supplier. In fact, the buyer's subjective tendency should focus on price, technology or both, and the buyer must make a biased decision before buying.
The third is invariance. Irrevocable means that once the scoring method is set and approved by the purchaser orally or in writing, it is not allowed to be modified again under any circumstances, especially at the bid evaluation site. If someone proposes to modify the scoring method, the procurement executing agency must adhere to the principle. Once the principle is abandoned and modified at will, regardless of the original intention, the procurement executing agency will definitely bear legal responsibility. Of course, under the framework clause, some details are not clear, and judges can negotiate. Under the premise of ensuring fair competition among bidders, appropriate supplements can be made.
The fourth is the rationality of index setting. The setting of scoring method is a complex system transaction, involving all aspects of information and summary. Incomplete or incorrect information collection will affect the scientific rationality of the scoring method. When buying a brand, it is relatively simple to set the scoring method, because under the same configuration, the same model and the same standard, the competition is technology, price and after-sales service; However, branding is against the spirit of law. Although there is a certain market and reasonable operation, it is not conducive to fair competition. For the trend of indefinite brand purchasing, the setting of scoring method is very complicated. How to reflect the cost performance between brands is a very profound knowledge. Brand effect, performance, government procurement price reduction, market share, brand awareness, service level and other aspects of the gap. Even trade journals or trade associations have no clear definition. It is really difficult to undertake the heavy responsibility of reasonable discrimination only by government procurement of existing human and material resources, and the gap between indefinite brand prices sometimes reaches several. There are also the problems of domestic and foreign brands participating in the competition at the same time, the connection between the indicators of energy-saving products and government procurement, and the policy role of government procurement, which are all difficult. Therefore, in the stage of project demonstration and tender preparation, we must comprehensively and carefully consider various factors that lead to difficulties in bid evaluation, make preparations in an appropriate way, and consider designating multiple brands with moderate cost performance as standards when necessary. This can not only meet the competitive needs of some uncertain brands, but also eliminate the out-of-control of the operational level and scope. How to make each index of the scoring method scientific and reasonable needs to be discussed in depth, and the research in this aspect will certainly go deep into the core content of government procurement, which is conducive to the healthy and orderly development of government procurement.