Although bidding activities are "protected" by laws and regulations, in actual bidding, some bidding practices will lay traps and routines where the legal system cannot monitor them, causing bidders to waste their money. It takes time and energy to participate, but there is no possibility of winning the bid. In this article, we share with you common traps in bidding documents. We hope that everyone will be more vigilant and pay attention to screening.

Trap 1

The qualification review is not rigorous, and "rough preparation" affects fairness

In actual operations, lax review is a common disaster area for bidding documents. The reason is that on the one hand, when preparing the bidding documents, the purchaser did not consider it thoroughly and neglected to set the details of the terms; on the other hand, some purchasers deliberately made this condition vague, implying that a specific supply Trader won the bid. Regardless of the reasons for the above two situations, it is easy for some suppliers to engage in "edge ball" behavior in the bidding documents.

According to a staff member of a provincial government procurement supervision department in central China, because the specific matters for review were not stated in the bidding documents, some suppliers had problems with their business scope, technology and other conditions. Frequent. For example, a supplier that does not have the right to operate the bidding project can successfully participate in the bidding based on a similar business name, or a supplier that does not have the business scope of the bidding project first writes in the bidding document that it is in line with the bidding project. business scope, technology and other conditions, and then temporarily change the company's business scope, etc. during the bidding period in accordance with the requirements of the bidding project. The occurrence of these two situations is related to the "shoddy" review of the bidding documents, which allowed suppliers who did not meet the conditions to participate in the bidding as a matter of course.

Solution

Strict qualification review conditions can reduce the situation of "improving the situation" and "skipping the ball", especially when some suppliers temporarily expand their business scope in order to impose bidding projects. Its quality and capabilities are highly questionable, and bidding-winning suppliers that engage in such behavior will have very bad consequences. In response to this situation, some insiders suggest that the purchaser or agency should set strict restrictive conditions for review qualifications in the bidding documents and explain them clearly. For example, when a supplier participates in bidding, can its business license be prohibited from being renewed for a certain period of time? If it must be renewed because the business license expires, the supplier should state the reason for the renewal and the updated qualifications and qualifications in the bidding document. Proof of ability, etc.

Trap 2

The qualification review and compliance review are not clear

The phenomenon of "showing off one's talents to others" occurs from time to time

According to one The person in charge of the bidding agency said that because the time, content, and subjects of the qualification review and the compliance review are different, in order to ensure the sealing of the documents, generally speaking, the two materials are required to be packaged separately. However, in In actual operations, we often receive mixed and incorrect materials. Moreover, some bidding projects will receive thousands of bidding documents. Some materials have sealing requirements. Some mixed documents cannot be opened and the wrong materials are displayed. This situation will lead to failure in review. Eligibility requirements not met, bid is void.

So, how to distinguish between the two reviews? The person in charge further explained in detail that the qualification inspection refers to the qualification certificate, bid deposit, etc. in the bidding documents in accordance with the provisions of laws, regulations and bidding documents. Conduct a review to determine whether the bidding supplier is qualified to bid; compliance inspection refers to reviewing the validity, completeness and responsiveness of the bidding documents according to the provisions of the bidding documents to determine whether the bidding documents are in compliance with the requirements of the bidding documents. Substantive requirements respond. In addition to the difference in content between the two, the subjects of the two reviews are also different. The subject of qualification review is the purchaser or procurement agency, and the subject of compliance review is the bid evaluation committee. Because the steps are different, the review times for the two are also different. Once the bidding documents are mixed and mixed, the links, contents, and subjects will be confused, and it is almost a "certainty" that the bidding will be invalid.

Solution

Because some suppliers do not understand the review process, they are confused about the qualification review and compliance review. If the bidding documents can be explained in advance, it will reduce the number of suppliers. The mistake of "showing off one's talents to others". The above-mentioned person in charge went on to say that when stipulating this content in the bidding documents, the purchaser or agency can clearly put forward the sub-packaging requirements and inform the bidders of the serious consequences, so as to increase the bidders' distinction and attention to the two reviews.

Trap 3

Some highly professional reviews are in name only

“The review of bidders is a meticulous job, and it is not easy to do it well. . Generally speaking, the qualification review focuses on business qualifications, professional qualifications, etc.; the content of the compliance review mainly includes the content of the bid letter, bid deposit, legal representative authorized person, relevant qualification certification documents, etc. "The above-mentioned Central Committee. A staff member of a provincial government procurement supervision department couldn’t help but sigh, “Some highly professional bidding projects require professional technology to identify and review. For complex review situations, purchasers and procurement agencies do not have the skills to match them. Some experts may only be experts in a certain field and do not fully understand the entire content of the review, so they cannot make correct judgments on the review. Especially within the limited time of review experts, the work becomes more difficult. ”

Solution

The review can use “foreign assistance”, that is, hiring experts from external fields such as law, technology, and evaluation to participate in the review. However, the proportion of the number of experts hired, their professional capabilities, and their qualifications must also be stated in the bidding documents. In particular, certain restrictions need to be given. For example, external review experts must not be related to the bidding project and must be separated from the review experts. to avoid bid-rigging and bidding-rigging.

Trap 4

Additional points may become an invisible "threshold"

Additional points have always been regarded as "extra bonuses" for bidding. Encouragement and recognition of the bidder's industry influence and qualifications have a significant impact on the bid winning result. The reporter interviewed a number of agencies and found that "bonus points" were the most common areas where deviations were mentioned by them. They almost unanimously believed that including bonus points in bidding documents would have the risk of affecting market fairness. , and it is easy to be questioned and complained.

The head of an agency among the interviewees said that if performance and awards are used as bonus points, then some newly established companies or small, medium and micro enterprises will be at a competitive disadvantage. If this cycle continues, the result is that large companies with long experience and high performance will increasingly have access to the bidding market, while new companies and small, medium and micro enterprises will have little chance of entering the procurement market. This is contrary to our country's current support for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in procurement activities, and is also inconsistent with our country's relevant legal provisions. For example, Article 20, paragraph 4, of the "Regulations on the Implementation of the Government Procurement Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that specific administrative Using performance and awards in a region or specific industry as a bonus point condition or as a condition for winning a bid or closing a deal is a form of differential or discriminatory treatment against suppliers under unreasonable conditions.

Another agency also put forward the opposite view on this. He pointed out that in order to ensure the quality and effect of project implementation, some procurement projects with high technical and professional requirements do need to look at the performance and awards of the bidders. Yes, this can also be found in relevant laws. According to the "Interpretation of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Government Procurement Law", from the perspective of the professional characteristics and actual needs of the procurement project, national non-specific industry performance or awards can be set as bonus points. Conditions may be bid winning or closing conditions.

Based on reality, how can a purchaser or agency screen out qualified bidders as quickly as possible among thousands of bidding documents? The extra points are a good starting point, and the bidders have the ability. Prove that you can undertake the procurement project, which matches the bidding needs of the bidder, why not do it?

Solution

An agency in a province in central China targeted the above The two views adopted a relatively "neutral" answer. He suggested that if the industry can have an evaluation system that can sufficiently prove the qualifications and abilities of bidders in addition to bonus conditions such as performance and awards? For example, in the bidding documents, The bidders are required to provide guarantees in terms of quality, credibility, and performance commitments, in order to avoid disputes caused by performance, technology, etc. as extra points.

Trap 5

No explanation of the timeliness of bonus points

Some experts said that bidding documents are often not prepared in too detail. Awards and other aspects also often ignore timeliness restrictions. Since performance and awards have a great "bonus" effect, they often induce dishonest behavior on the part of some bidders. For example, some suppliers directly write bonus materials such as performance and awards from a few years ago into the bid documents. Although the timeliness has expired, they repeatedly use these materials as long as there are bids. This behavior not only affects market fairness, but also It hinders the integrity construction of the bidding and bidding industry.

Solution

In response to the above contradiction, the expert further pointed out that the effectiveness of bonus points should be listed in detail in the bidding documents, including the need for bidders to provide performance, awards, etc. Explanation of the validity period, the authority of the issuing unit and the pros and cons of the procurement project, etc.

Trap 6

There is a "trick" in the payment time

When the supplier reads the payment method, payment time and other terms of the bidding document, if the bidding document does not include Suppliers will bid carefully if the payment date or method is clearly stated, especially small businesses. This is mainly because they are worried that the payment time for bidding projects at the beginning of the year may be at the end of the year, or even for longer-term installment payments. And if the bidding documents do not guarantee the payment date, there will also be a risk of payment being delayed for a year or even longer. Small businesses cannot afford the upfront capital investment, not to mention those suppliers who have adopted financing methods such as loans. "In fact, 'delaying' payment time is equivalent to setting an invisible 'threshold' for bidders, and this 'threshold' has become a ticket for some designated suppliers. In other words, when most suppliers cannot afford it, When the upfront capital cost burden has forced the bidders to give up, the designated suppliers can "popular". The tenderer may be lenient on the date and method of fund payment to the designated suppliers, and those bidders who are restricted may also be lenient. There’s no way to know,” said a relevant person in charge of a bidding company in an eastern province.

Solution

Article 20 of the "Measures for the Administration of Tendering for Government Procurement of Goods and Services" (Ministry of Finance Order No. 87, hereinafter referred to as "Order No. 87") also applies to this Relevant regulations have been stipulated, that is, the bidding documents should include the payment method, time and conditions of the procurement funds. In order to ensure the fairness and justice of the bidding market, purchasers or agencies can specify specific terms such as payment time and method when preparing bidding documents, and the payment time and method should be consistent with common sense.

Trap Seven

Testing or inspection reports lack authority

As an important measure of product quality, product testing or inspection reports are generally consistent with the needs of procurement projects. adapt. According to Article 22 of Order No. 87, if the purchaser or procurement agency requires the bidder to provide samples, the bidder shall clearly stipulate in the bidding documents the standards and requirements for sample production, whether it is necessary to submit relevant test reports with the samples, and the number of samples. Evaluation methods and evaluation criteria. If a test report needs to be submitted with the sample, the requirements of the testing agency, test content, etc. should also be specified.

“Generally speaking, testing or inspection is performed by a third party, and requirements such as whether the testing or inspection institution has authoritative qualifications and whether the certificate issued by it represents the industry’s views are generally not specified in the bidding documents, which will As a result, some intermediary organizations without authority and technical capabilities randomly issued a testing certification or report to a certain supplier, and the supplier took the testing certification or report to participate in the bidding. "A company in Guangdong Province is engaged in the production of biological experimental equipment. The person in charge of the company told reporters.

Solution

“It is recommended that purchasers and agencies clearly specify the testing content and testing organization in the bidding documents. Otherwise, even if there are test reports and certifications, they will be worthless materials. It misleads the judgment of review experts, but specific testing content or testing institutions should not be used as review factors to limit or exclude potential suppliers that can provide other testing or inspection report products that meet procurement needs," the person in charge said.

Trap 8

The subjective scores of review experts are not quantified

In order to ensure fairness and impartiality in the review process, in recent years, the country has continuously introduced relevant regulations to regulate business and technology. The evaluation factors are continuously refined and quantified. In particular, Order No. 87 provides more detailed provisions on this. For example, Article 55 points out that the setting of evaluation factors should be related to the quality of goods and services provided by the bidder, including bidding. Quotation, technology or service level, contract performance capability, after-sales service, etc.; if business conditions and procurement demand indicators have interval provisions, the evaluation factors should be quantified to the corresponding interval, and different scores corresponding to each interval should be set; bid quotation score = (bid evaluation Base price/bidding price) × 100; total bid evaluation score = F1 × A1 F2 × A2… Fn × An…. From this point of view, Order No. 87 adopts a rigorous approach to the evaluation factors to ensure fairness in bid evaluation.

Some people in the industry revealed that some bidding documents often ignore the refinement and quantification of the subjective evaluation factors of the review experts. The review experts have greater discretion and ultimately the review experts are unable to make a fair and just decision. score. What do the subjective factors of the review experts include? Generally speaking, they include the understanding and planning of the project, the conceptual design of the project, project implementation, project construction, etc. that cannot be verified with specific objective basis. Usually, the bidding documents simply state the overall requirements for the subjective evaluation factors of the evaluation experts, without refining a certain content and corresponding scores. Generally, the evaluation experts themselves determine the grades of excellent, good, and average.

Solution

Tender documents are the first step to ensure the fairness of the bid evaluation process. If the provisions in the tender documents are not strict, problems may easily arise in actual operations. In order to avoid the risk of excessive discretionary power of review experts, the unit that prepares the bidding documents can refine and quantify the subjective review factors of the review experts when preparing the bidding documents, list the specific review standards of different levels, and set corresponding intervals. Different scores to ensure fairness and objectivity in the review process.

Trap 9

Repeated use of the same terms and conditions

Bid-rigging and bid-rigging are "stubborn diseases" that have been repeatedly banned. The industry has also summarized a variety of methods to help bidders People have developed the ability to "judge gold", and some hidden unfair terms cannot be seen clearly at a glance. For example, some bidding documents use the terms of qualification review as terms of the review process, and such "traps" "Easy to be ignored.

Solution

“If a review clause is used as a bonus point condition in the evaluation factors, there will be serious suspicion of bid-rigging.” Some experts pointed out that, “"Government Article 55 of the Measures for the Administration of Bidding for Procurement of Goods and Services (Order No. 87 of the Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as "Order No. 87") has clearly stated this, that is, qualifications shall not be used as evaluation factors in the bidding process. stipulated in the document. This clause is to prevent a clause from being used multiple times and ensure fair evaluation. Some bidding documents have "traps" for this, and bidders are not likely to pay attention to it.

”

Trap 10

Ambiguing the number of allowed deviations

Public bidding is different from other procurement methods. In other procurement methods, you can choose to exclude certain substantive terms. If the conditions are met, multiple rounds of negotiations and consultations can be carried out on the substantive content, while public bidding lists the conditional payments in one go. The relevant person in charge of an agency in a central province said that public bidding will be subject to the special requirements of the project. Compliance terms and general terms are clarified in the bidding documents. General terms can be understood as terms other than review terms, such as parameters, technology, materials and other relatively trivial requirements.

Usually. , the bidding document will set the number of allowed deviations, and the content and number of the allowed deviations will have a great impact on the bidders. How to understand this issue? The person in charge further explained that if the number of allowed deviations is stipulated in the bidding documents. It is 10 items, that is to say, if 10 items in the terms do not meet the requirements of the bidding project, the bid will be determined to be invalid; and if the number of allowed deviations is 5 items, it means that 5 items in the terms do not meet the requirements of the bidding items. If required, the bid will be determined to be invalid. From this point of view, the selection criteria for bidders are also different depending on the number of deviations allowed.

General terms mainly include parameters, models, and materials. , technology, specifications and other trivial and detailed contents. Under normal circumstances, most bidders will bid according to normal standards when bidding. If the bidder makes slight changes in these terms, most suppliers will not be able to obtain information from a large amount of data. Check parameters, so most bidders will be eliminated by the purchaser without understanding the real needs of the purchaser. If the purchaser informs a certain supplier of its changed parameters, that supplier will become a minority. Bidders.

Solution

The setting of allowed deviations in the number and content of items is another invisible "trap" in the bidding documents, and the purchaser or agency needs to make it clear in the bidding documents. The number of items that are allowed to deviate. The relevant basis can also be found in Order No. 87. Article 20 stipulates that the purchaser or procurement agency should stipulate in the bidding documents the substantive requirements and conditions that are not allowed to deviate, and in a conspicuous manner. In addition, bidders must carefully read the general terms of the bidding project when reviewing the bidding documents to avoid falling into "trap 11"

Non-manufacturer certification. The document is "smoke and mirrors"

Is the bidder necessarily the manufacturer of the procurement project? The answer is no. "Some bidders do not have the manufacturing rights and capabilities to produce the procurement project, but they are manufacturers. Agents participate in bidding. There are certain risks in this situation. Some time ago, our office received a similar complaint. Bidder A did not obtain the authorization from Company B (manufacturer), but he participated in the bidding under the pretense of being authorized by Company B and won the bid. Later, Company B discovered the fact that Bidder A did not have a letter of authorization. "The relevant person in charge of a municipal finance department in central China told reporters, "Later, after studying the case, we learned that it was due to the lack of strict control over non-manufacturer certification during the bidding process. ”

Solution

Order No. 87 makes relevant provisions on “manufacturer authorization issues” in Article 17, that is, purchasers and procurement agencies shall not remove imported goods through The person in charge then explained that this provision of Order No. 87 is to avoid using authorization as a qualification condition to affect the market. Be open and fair, rather than falsely reporting to obtain manufacturer authorization at the expense of integrity.

So, can bidders be required to provide manufacturer authorization in the bidding documents, and can manufacturer authorization be used as a bonus? Some experts said. , the purchaser should not put forward this requirement in the bidding documents, nor should it be used as a bonus item. If the manufacturer is authorized by the bidder or used as a bonus item, it is essentially equivalent to leaving it to the manufacturer to control the bidding. For example, The manufacturer will authorize one bidder, so that bidder's probability of winning the bid will increase, which is unfair to other bidders.

Trap 12

It is difficult to find the standards for the acceptance process

Acceptance is the final check on the procurement project. The acceptance standards and accountability lack rigor, and the purchaser or Agencies fall into the same trap. For example, the model and parameters of a procurement project do not meet the requirements of the procurement project. However, because there are no detailed stipulations in the bidding documents about the specific content of acceptance and the matching of acceptance personnel and acceptance content, some suppliers Vendors can also exploit these vulnerabilities.

The relevant laws of our country have relatively strict and comprehensive provisions on the acceptance process. For example, Article 45 of the "Regulations on the Implementation of the Government Procurement Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that the purchaser or procurement agent The agency shall organize the inspection and acceptance of the supplier's performance in accordance with the technical, service and safety standards stipulated in the government procurement contract and issue an acceptance letter. The acceptance letter should include the performance of each technology, service, and safety standard. As another example, Article 41 of the "Government Procurement Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that the purchaser or the procurement agency entrusted by it shall organize the acceptance of the supplier's performance of the contract. For large or complex government procurement projects, nationally recognized quality inspection agencies should be invited to participate in the acceptance inspection. Members of the acceptance party shall sign the acceptance letter and bear corresponding legal responsibilities. For another example, Article 74 of Order No. 87 stipulates that the purchaser shall promptly inspect and accept the procurement project. The purchaser may invite other bidders or third-party organizations participating in the project to participate in the acceptance inspection. The opinions of bidders or third-party organizations participating in the acceptance acceptance shall be archived as reference materials for the acceptance letter.

Interviews with relevant people revealed that in actual operations, because purchasers do not know much about the matching of models and parameters, some suppliers deliberately mix and match correct parameters and wrong models. In addition, purchasers or agencies lack professional inspection capabilities such as parameters and technology for some projects, so it is easy for purchased products to pass the test. Even though some special procurement projects require a third party to participate in acceptance inspection, for most procurement projects, the purchaser is still mainly responsible for acceptance. Because of the lack of professional control over parameters, models, and technology, the acceptance inspection is ultimately hasty.

Solution

The purchaser or agency should specify in the bidding document the requirements for acceptance personnel, the specific terms of acceptance, how to remedy and hold accountable any errors in the acceptance process, etc. Specific content, this will not only make the bidding documents more scientific and standardized, but also increase the attention of all procurement parties to the acceptance process.

Generally speaking, in order to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests in bidding and avoid being unfairly treated, we ourselves also need to pay more attention. When the nature of the review is unclear, some highly professional reviews are in name only, or the test or inspection report lacks authority, you must raise questions, objections or even report in a timely manner.

For more information about engineering/service/purchasing tender document writing and production to improve the bid winning rate, you can click on the official website customer service at the bottom for free consultation: /#/?source=bdzd