1. How to identify major deviations in compliance review?
Case: During the bid evaluation of a goods procurement project, the bid evaluation committee found that an important index of a bidder's bidding products did not meet the requirements of the tender documents, but the tender documents did not specify that this index was ★.
Problem analysis: In compliance inspection, the Bid Evaluation Committee conducts compliance inspection on the validity, completeness and responsiveness of the bidding documents according to the provisions of the bidding documents, and the bidding documents with significant deviations are invalid. In this project, the major deviation specified in the tender documents refers to the deviation in quality, technology, specification, quantity and delivery date. The goods and services mentioned in the bidder's bidding documents obviously cannot meet the requirements of the bidding documents. If more than two thirds of the bid evaluation committee agrees that it is a major deviation, the bid document will be judged as invalid.
2. Whether external evidence can be sought during bid evaluation.
Case: In the bid evaluation stage of an office furniture procurement project, the members of the bid evaluation committee asked the bidder to provide the product inspection report in order to know whether the bidding products were qualified.
Problem analysis: The Bid Evaluation Committee determined that the responsiveness of the bid was only based on the contents of the bid document itself, and did not seek external evidence. Therefore, the bid evaluation committee's request was rejected, and the regulatory authorities gave it a warning.
3. The buyer's representative interferes with the review of the negotiating team.
Case: During the negotiation of a campus monitoring and broadcasting system procurement project, the purchaser's representative repeatedly made tendentious remarks, which interfered with the negotiation team's bid evaluation. After the bid evaluation report came out, he asked the procurement center to organize bid evaluation experts for reconsideration for some reason. Finally, the reconsideration still maintains the original evaluation results.
Problem analysis: in the process of bid evaluation, the buyer's representative influenced the evaluation of the negotiating team for some purpose. In this regard, it is necessary to strengthen the assessment management of buyers, establish a platform for publicity of buyers' integrity, and regularly publicize buyers with bad behavior.
4. Difficulties in bid evaluation of emergency procurement projects
Case: in the procurement project of a company's exhibition project, the procurement unit proposed that the project was a key project of the municipal government, and the time was very tight, requiring the procurement agency to complete it within 5 days. After the announcement, ***4 suppliers participated in the registration, among which 3 suppliers were contacted by the purchasing unit in advance, and 1 was a local enterprise (unable to participate in the bidding due to insufficient preparation). After negotiation by the negotiating team, the winning bid price is only 2% lower than the budget, and the procurement effect is not satisfactory.
Problem analysis: the announcement time of emergency project is short. First, the announcement is a mere formality, which leads to insufficient competition; Second, it is easy to trigger cross-labeling. After the results of the project were publicized, the staff of another supplier who had participated in the bidding later went through the formalities. It is suggested to strictly control the application for changing public bidding to negotiation, implement joint examination and approval by financial and regulatory departments, and strengthen the purchaser's awareness of purchasing according to law.
5. Restrictions on judges' discretion
Case: The service technical scheme is divided into six standards in the scoring standard of a property management project, with a score of ***48. During the evaluation process, the procurement agency found that there were obvious differences in the scores of bid evaluation experts. Some experts gave high marks to the service technical scheme of a property company, and some experts gave low marks to a property company.
Problem analysis: the evaluation criteria give the judges too much discretion, and the professional quality of the bid evaluation experts is different, which leads to different understanding of the bidder's technical scheme. In addition, the bidding documents produced by suppliers are full of pursuit, empty talk and lack of targeted clauses, which brings great difficulties to the judges' correct judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to further refine the bidding documents, refine the scoring standards and reasonably limit the discretion of the judges. At the same time, clearly refine the components of the tender documents, require the tender documents to be targeted, avoid falsehood and falsehood, and delete all clauses that are not directly related to the project implementation.
The above content is about the introduction of "common problems and analysis in bid evaluation". I hope these contents are helpful to everyone. If you want to know more about the bidding information, please visit the bidding website!
For more information about project/service/procurement bidding, and to improve the winning rate, please click on the bottom of official website Customer Service for free consultation:/#/? source=bdzd