The common problems in bid evaluation involve various aspects, including technical issues, economic issues, legal issues, management issues and moral issues. Everyone has his own fixed thinking mode and professional position, which will inevitably lead to the limitation of his view of problems. Therefore, according to the law, the bid evaluation committee should be established according to law and be responsible for bid evaluation activities, and the experts in technology and economy in the bid evaluation committee should not be less than two-thirds of the total number of members. I. Review of legal provisions on bid evaluation
1. Subject of bid evaluation: Bid evaluation committee established by the tenderer according to law Article 37 of the Bidding Law stipulates: "The bid evaluation committee established by the tenderer according to law shall be responsible for bid evaluation. For projects that must be subject to tender according to law, the bid evaluation committee shall be composed of representatives of the tenderee and experts in relevant technical and economic fields, with an odd number of members of more than five, of which experts in technical and economic fields shall not be less than two thirds of the total number of members. "
2. Basis for bid evaluation: evaluation criteria and methods stipulated in laws, regulations and bidding documents. Article 49 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Bidding Law stipulates: "Members of the bid evaluation committee shall objectively and fairly give evaluation opinions on the bidding documents in accordance with the provisions of the Bidding Law and these Regulations and the evaluation criteria and methods stipulated in the bidding documents. Standards and methods not specified in the tender documents shall not be used as the basis for bid evaluation. "
3. Bid evaluation process (1) Bid evaluation preparation. Article 15 of the Interim Provisions on the Bid Evaluation Committee and Methods stipulates: "Members of the Bid Evaluation Committee shall prepare corresponding forms for bid evaluation, carefully study the bidding documents, and at least be familiar with and understand the following contents: (1) the objectives of bidding; (2) The scope and nature of the project subject to tender; (three) the main technical requirements, standards and commercial terms stipulated in the tender documents; (4) The bid evaluation criteria and methods stipulated in the tender documents and the relevant factors considered in the bid evaluation process. " (2) Preliminary review. Article 52 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law stipulates: "If there are ambiguous contents, obvious words or calculation errors in the bidding documents, the bid evaluation committee considers it necessary for the bidder to make necessary clarifications and explanations, it shall notify the bidder in writing. The clarification and explanation of the bidder shall be in written form, and shall not go beyond the scope of the bidding documents or change the substantive contents of the bidding documents. " According to the above provisions, clarification needs to pay attention to the following four issues: first, clarification matters must be put forward by the bid evaluation Committee in writing; Second, there are three situations that need to be clarified: the tender documents contain ambiguous contents, the tender documents are inconsistent in expressing similar problems, and there are obvious text and calculation errors in the tender documents; Third, the clarification statement shall not go beyond the scope of the tender documents or change the substantive content of the tender documents; Fourth, the bidder should make clarification, explanation and correction in writing in accordance with the written clarification requirements of the bid evaluation Committee; Fifth, the bid evaluation committee can only ask for clarification of the bidding documents that meet the statutory conditions according to law, and shall not imply or induce the bidders to make clarifications and explanations, and shall not accept the clarifications and explanations offered by the bidders. (3) Detailed review. Article 29 of the Interim Provisions on the Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Evaluation Methods stipulates: "Bid evaluation methods include the lowest evaluated bid price method, comprehensive evaluation method or other bid evaluation methods permitted by laws and regulations." The content of the detailed evaluation of the evaluated lowest bid price method is to make necessary adjustments to the price elements of the bidding documents according to the methods specified in the bidding documents, so as to compare the price elements of all bidding documents according to a unified caliber. The possible adjustments of price elements include the deviation of bidding scope, the increase (or decrease) of missing items (or items) in bidding, the difference of time value of funds caused by the deviation of payment terms, the direct profit and loss brought by the deviation of delivery date (construction period) to the tenderer, the loss of foreign currency exchange rate conversion, and the increase or decrease of taxes, transportation insurance premiums and other expenses that should be considered in bid evaluation although not included in the quotation.
the content of detailed evaluation by comprehensive evaluation method is to quantitatively convert various factors such as price, business and technology into currency, score or proportional coefficient according to the standards (score or currency) specified in the tender documents, and then make comparison. (4) Recommend the candidate winning bidders. Article 53 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law stipulates: "After the bid evaluation is completed, the bid evaluation committee shall submit a written bid evaluation report and a list of the candidate winning bidders to the tenderer. There should be no more than three successful candidates, and the ranking should be indicated. " Second, the common problems in the bid evaluation process The problems in the bid evaluation process are often closely related to the preparation of bidding documents. If these problems are stipulated in laws, regulations or bidding documents, it will be easier to solve; If there are omissions and errors in the preparation of bidding documents, the problem is relatively difficult to solve. Specifically, there are the following types of problems: 1. The first type of problems: the common situation of unqualified bidders being rejected
Subject identity: refer to the provisions of the Pre-qualification Document for Standard Construction Bidding.
stakes: refer to the provisions of the prequalification document for standard construction bidding.
holding management relationship: refer to the provisions of the prequalification document for standard construction bidding. 2. The second kind of problems: the highest price limit is not specified in the bidding documents. For example, the bidding documents for a project have not set the highest bid price limit, nor have they set the calculation method of the highest bid price limit. What should be done if all the bidders' quotations exceed the project budget? What should I do if some bidders' quotations exceed the budget? The Bidding Law shall apply to enterprises that use their own funds for bidding and purchasing. According to the Bidding Law and relevant laws and regulations, the bid price exceeding the project budget is not the legal reason for rejecting the bid. Therefore, if all the bidders' bids exceed the project budget and there is no maximum price set in the bidding documents, there is no legal basis for rejecting all the bids. According to Article 64 of the Measures for Tendering and Bidding of Construction Projects (Order No.31 of Seven Ministries), the construction scale, construction standards, construction contents and contract price determined in the contract shall be controlled within the approved preliminary design and budgetary estimate documents. If it is really necessary to exceed the prescribed scope, it shall be submitted to the original project examination and approval department for examination and approval before the signing of the winning contract. Where it should be reported after examination but not reported, the original project examination and approval department will not recognize it when the preliminary design and budgetary estimate are adjusted. The tenderee usually cannot reject the bid for this reason. 3. The third kind of problems: wholly-owned subsidiaries of the bidding agency and participation in the bidding. Example: For a construction bidding project that must be tendered according to law, both the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the bidding agency and the shareholding companies of the bidding agency participated in the bidding, which was not stipulated in the bidding documents. As a result, is it correct that the subsidiary of the tendering agency and the shareholding company of the tendering agency were rejected by the bid evaluation committee? The answer is negative. Article 15 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law stipulates: "The preparation of prequalification documents and bidding documents for projects that must be subject to bidding according to law shall use the standard texts formulated by the development and reform department of the State Council in conjunction with relevant administrative supervision departments." "Concise Bidding Document for Construction" stipulates in the qualification requirements of bidders: "A bidder shall not hold or share in the following situations with the supervisor, agent or bidding agency of this bidding project." 4. The fourth category of questions: in the procurement of goods, the restrictions on the bidding of agents are answered. The situation that the bidding of agents is not accepted is as follows: (1) The bidding document stipulates that the bidding of agents is not accepted; (2) The qualification conditions of the agent do not meet the requirements of the tender documents; (3) The manufacturer and its entrusted agent bid at the same time; (4) The manufacturer entrusts two or more agents to invest in the same brand and model goods. 5. The fifth kind of question: How to determine the relevant qualifications and achievements of bidders in case of merger or division? Answer (1) Regardless of merger or division, the qualification of the enterprise must be recognized by the relevant examination and approval departments, and the qualification should be owned by the bidder and in the name of the bidder. Before the merger or division, the qualification under the company name should be changed. (2) If the enterprise is merged, the merged enterprise can inherit the performance of all parties before the merger. (3) If the enterprise is divided, the performance of the bidder needs to be re-evaluated after the division. Transferred from: senior partner of Sichuan Junhe Law Firm, national registered lawyer, registered auctioneer, arbitrator, project cost manager (senior), corporate legal risk manager (senior), corporate legal consultant (senior), master of civil and commercial law, member of Sichuan Provincial Branch of China Democratic National Construction Association, member of Sichuan Social Law Association of China Democratic National Construction Association, director of Legal Center of Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, member of china law society.
main business and expertise: perennial legal counsel, real estate and construction, finance, investment and financing, merger and reorganization, company law, economic contract, bankruptcy, auction, intellectual property and other civil and commercial litigation, non-litigation business and criminal defense.
education experience: southwest university of political science and law, Sichuan university, Tsinghua University, Asian city university.
lawyer's working experience: since 2111, he has been practicing as a lawyer.
Honors: won the "Excellent Performance Award" and "Special Contribution Award" of Sichuan Junhe Law Firm for many years.
main achievements of lawyers' practice: achievements of legal advisory units (including former services and current services) as Chengdu Real Estate Administration Bureau, Sunshine Yibai Real Estate (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., SM Real Estate Co., Ltd. under SM Group of Philippines, SMDC(HK) Limited, Sichuan Jiahe Real Estate, Chengdu Wenjiang Xingcheng Real Estate, Chengdu Xuyong Xingcheng Real Estate, Sichuan Xingyuan Real Estate, Sichuan Oriental Residence, Sichuan Sichuan University Oriental Building Intelligent Technology, Sichuan Siwei Construction Services, Chengdu Benchmark Real Estate, Sichuan Shunxing Garden, Sichuan Lutong Construction, Chengdu Construction Engineering, Chengdu Anshi Industrial Group, Sichuan Deshang Dehui Industrial Group, Sichuan Merchants Association Investment Management, Sichuan Debiao Investment, Sichuan Jinshu Investment, Chengdu Xuanding Investment Guarantee, Chengdu Yinzhilang Investment Management, Chengdu Lin Jin Pioneer Equity Investment Fund Management, Chengdu Xuanyong Investment, Chengdu Chengdu Xibianliang Furniture, Chengdu Zidan Furniture, Chengdu Pengchenghong Advertising, Chengdu Zonghedao Advertising, Chengdu Income-generating Trade, Chengdu Yongwang Plastics, Chengdu Sanli Printing, Chengdu Baichuan Paint, Chengdu Hongpai Yongji, Korea Corporation Shihong Planning, Chengdu Windmill Baby Education, Chengdu Haoli Tiancheng, Chengdu Tonganda Fire Protection, Sichuan Jiuwu Custom-made, Sichuan Renren Wine E-commerce, Sichuan Original Wine Technology, Yijiu Purchase Holdings, Chengdu Dezhi Sichuan Xinding Medical Equipment, Sichuan Tongchuang Vision Trade, Sichuan Deshang Alliance Investment, Sichuan Dehui Investment, Chengdu Zhenkun Trade, Sichuan Wenxuan Online, Zhichao Technology, Yingu Technology, Lecongcong Technology, Sichuan Development Guohong Investment, Chengdu Longtan Yudu Industry, Sichuan Zhonglanhai Industry, Sichuan Geers Industry, Sichuan Tianxiaxing Real Estate Development, Chengdu Xunying Boxiang, Samsung Fuli, Chengdu Yanting Chamber of Commerce, Chengdu Deyang Chamber of Commerce. Litigation and non-litigation achievements 1. Successful agent Ms. Lin v. Sichuan Shangdong Chaoyang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. CaseNo.: Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (2112) Chengminchuzi No.123; 2. Successful agency (including execution) Sichuan Oriental Housing Development Co., Ltd. v. longxing temple of Pengzhou City, case number: Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (2112) Chengminchuzi No.213. In this case, the agent applicant successfully added Pengzhou Buddhist Association as the executor, which is crucial to the final implementation and is typical; 3. Successfully represented Shihong Planning of Korea Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Shijie Advertising Co., Ltd. in other service contract dispute caseNo.: Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (2116) Chengminchuzi No.35. In this case, the defendant shareholder was successfully added as the executor in the execution stage because of suspected false capital contribution, which is exemplary. This case was selected into the Supreme People's Court Judicial Case Database; 4. Defend the influential "Li's suspected crime of seeking trouble" in the country (at the time of the incident, Jinjiang District police dispatched more than 61 police officers to control the scene. The facts of this case were published in the 3rd edition of Chengdu Business Daily on May 27th, 2116, and sctv and Chengdu TV stations also reported on it). They communicated and actively exchanged opinions with the public prosecution agency, prosecuted for the crime of obstructing official duties, and finally sentenced Li to 7 months' imprisonment: Jinjiang District People's Court of Chengdu (2116) Jinjiang Criminal Chu Zi No.632; 5. Successfully represented Chengdu Longtan Yudu Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zhongshiye Group Co., Ltd. for a construction contract dispute of more than RMB 11 million: (2112) Chenghua Minchuzi No.1379; 6. Providing agency services for construction contract disputes of construction projects for Zhichao Technology (Suining) Co., Ltd. with the amount of more than 91 million RMB: (2118) Chuan 11 Min Chu Zi No.612 and (2118) Chuan 11 Min Chu Zi No.2867; 7. Participating in the first case of Sichuan illegally absorbing public deposits in 2111 (Meishan Ganchangyun and Sichuan Shangdong Chaoyang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. illegally absorbed public deposits of RMB 111 million); 8. Participate in the establishment of a small loan company and provide legal services; 9. Representing Fan in a series of cases of private lending disputes with the amount of 71 million yuan; 11. Provided Fan with litigation service for construction contract disputes of construction projects with the amount of more than RMB 111 million. Case number: Sichuan Higher People's Court (2117) Chuanminchu No.124 11. So far, he has successfully represented more than 611 litigation and non-litigation legal services.
team service: Ren Zhengfei's lawyer team studio was established, and Ren Zhengfei's lawyer team was established (members' professional expertise covers company law, labor law, intellectual property rights, risk compliance, corporate governance structure improvement, PE, VC, IPO, etc.). Always adhere to the road of specialization, branding and team service. Can undertake major, difficult and complicated legal projects, and can provide timely, comprehensive, adequate, high-quality and efficient legal services for the parties.
professional skills and litigation success rate (including mediation): Ren Zhengfei is a lawyer with profound legal theory and professional debate/defense skills. I am honest and trustworthy in entrusting the parties, diligent and conscientious, and good at formulating legal risk prevention mechanisms for legal advisory units, with a view to risk compliance and "nip in the bud". Its professional skills, eloquent eloquence, elegant language, meticulous thinking, pragmatic litigation plan, diligent and dedicated attitude and team service are the guarantees for the parties to receive quality service. Up to now, according to the statistics of case files over the years, its litigation success rate (including mediation) has remained above 95%.