Enterprises that fail to pass the review will have another opportunity to make online representations, so enterprises should refer to the review comments and go over the application materials again, carefully prepare the complaint materials, and don't miss any opportunity to convince experts to recognize and improve their scores! Enterprises that fail to pass the examination should file a complaint on the provincial sunshine government platform from 9: on October 1 to 9: on October 14, 219. If it fails, it will no longer be accepted, and the provincial science and technology department will conduct follow-up treatment according to relevant regulations.
Appeal method:
This appeal is an online appeal, and enterprises only need to submit materials in the "Sunshine Government Platform" appeal module.
Complaint time:
From 9: on October 1, 219 to 9: on October 14, 219, the complaint will not be accepted after the deadline
Material requirements:
(1) The enterprise shall specify the main points of the complaint, including but not limited to: the actual score of the indicator, the self-evaluation of the enterprise on this indicator, and the expected score of this indicator.
(2) The enterprise files a complaint based on the application materials already submitted on the "Sunshine Government Platform", and no supplementary application materials can be added.
Complaint writing skills:
Composition of complaint materials: summary of reasons for failure, description of enterprise viewpoint, complaint grounds and supporting materials;
According to the analysis of the evaluation results of the second batch of high-tech accreditation experts in 219, there should be the following situations that failed the high-tech accreditation:
1. The field was rejected: the core technology was not clearly expressed, and the relationship with the "High-tech Fields Supported by the State" was not clarified; It is suggested to explain the relevance between R&D projects, intellectual property rights, transformation of achievements, high-tech income and declared technical fields during the presentation;
2. The proportion of scientific and technical personnel was rejected: the cumulative actual working hours of scientific and technical personnel in the last year were less than 183 days, and their professional background was inconsistent with that of the enterprise;
It is suggested that the proportion of scientific and technical personnel be recalculated when presenting. If there is no problem with the proportion, the academic qualifications or professional titles of scientific and technical personnel should be provided;
3. R&D expenses were rejected: R&D expenses were excluded, which led to the proportion of R&D expenses not reaching the standard, mainly because R&D projects had no technical content or the collection of R&D expenses was questioned;
It is suggested that the accounting vouchers of the special audit report on R&D expenses should be provided for the financial experts to review, and the premise, collection method, collection standard principle, collection scope and results of R&D expenses of enterprises should be explained;
4. The collection of high-tech income is denied: whether the product is a high-tech product is questioned;
it is suggested to explain that the products belong to the high-tech fields supported by the state and meet the requirements of high-quality identification, and to elaborate the standards and scope of products (services) for high-tech income collection, provide the basis for the collection of special audit reports on high-tech product income, and provide relevant certification materials;
5. The score of intellectual property rights is low: it is mainly reflected in the single type and small quantity of intellectual property rights and the weak supporting role with the main products of enterprises:
There is no category of intellectual property rights (such as invention patents), especially only a single category (such as software copyright or utility model patents) and the number is less than 1, so it is difficult to score 2 points;
if the intellectual property rights are applied in 219, it is difficult to score 2 points; Intellectual property rights do not support the main products. For example, the enterprise is in the manufacturing field, but the core intellectual property rights are only software copyright, and there are no invention patents or utility model patents in production technology and manufacturing methods, so it is difficult to score 2 points.
It is suggested to explain the relevance of intellectual property rights and main products, their supporting role, the advanced nature of intellectual property technology, the type and quantity of intellectual property rights, the way of obtaining intellectual property rights, and whether the enterprise participates in the preparation of national standards, industry standards, testing methods and technical specifications one by one, and give the self-evaluation score of intellectual property rights;
6. The score of transformation of scientific and technological achievements is low: if the number of intellectual property rights is small and the product type of the enterprise is single, it is difficult to score 2 points; It is suggested that the new products, new equipment, new technologies and services transformed, as well as the technical level, transformation sources and transformation results of the prototype/sample, should be explained during the presentation, and the same type of products should express differences, provide corresponding certification materials, and give the self-evaluation scores of the transformation items of scientific and technological achievements;
7. The score of R&D organization and management is low: it is difficult to score 15 points due to the lack of certification materials for the implementation of the system; It is suggested to explain the R&D management system, R&D institutions and Industry-University-Research, achievement transformation reward system and talent performance system, and provide relevant supporting documents and materials, and give the self-evaluation scores of R&D organization and management items.
if it is a one-vote veto, the representation materials should focus on proving that the item should not be rejected by one vote; If the score is less than or equal to 7 points, then you should find the place where you lost the most points, but don't state everything; Financial scores are generally accurate, unless it is a calculation error, don't easily state financial scores.