How to judge the credit rating of bidding?

There is a table for corporate credit evaluation, I will not list this table, the full score is 100 points Enterprise credit, no major accidents, deep enterprise heritage, etc. can get high scores, but the most important thing is a credit issue.

Bid evaluation refers to the conduct of reviewing, evaluating and comparing the bid documents by the bid evaluation committee and the tenderer according to the bid evaluation standards and methods specified in the bidding documents

Bid evaluation is a very important stage in the bidding and bidding activities, whether the bid evaluation is truly open, fair and just, determines whether the entire bidding and bidding activities are fair and just; The quality of the bid evaluation determines whether the winning bidder can be selected from the many bidding competitors that can best meet the requirements of the bidding project.

Principle (1) Fairness and impartiality.

2) Bid evaluation in accordance with the law.

3) Bid evaluation in strict accordance with the bidding documents: as long as the bidding documents do not violate the current laws, regulations and rules, and there are no inconsistent provisions, they should be evaluated in strict accordance with the bidding documents and their annexes, modification minutes, and Q&A minutes.

4) Reasonable, scientific and merit-based.

5) the evaluation principle of the failure to provide supporting information: where the bidder does not provide the supporting materials (including qualification certificates, performance certificates, professional qualifications or certificates, etc.), if it is a mandatory requirement of the bidding documents, the judges will not confirm and should reject their bids; If it is a review factor of the score evaluation method or the price ratio method, it will not be scored, and the bidder shall not make corrections.

Bid evaluation refers to the bid evaluation committee established by the tenderer in accordance with the law, according to the law and the bidding documents to determine the bid evaluation methods and specific evaluation standards, the bid opening in all the unpacked and singing of the bid documents for review, according to the evaluation of the bid evaluation report, and to the tenderer to recommend the winning candidate, or according to the tenderer's authorization to directly determine the process of the winning bidder. Tender.

What is Bid Evaluation? The principle of bid evaluation is the basic rule that all parties concerned should abide by in the bidding and bidding activities, which can be summarized into four aspects:

1) Fairness, justice, science, and merit;

2) Strict confidentiality;

3) independent review;

4) Strictly abide by the bid evaluation method.

What are the methods of bid evaluation?

Commonly used bid evaluation methods are:

1. Single evaluation method.

The single evaluation method, also known as the single-factor evaluation method and the low bid method, is a method of evaluating and determining the winning bidder by only evaluating the bidder's bid, which is mainly applicable to small projects.

The main feature of the single evaluation method is that only the first factor is evaluated, and other factors are not considered, and the lowest bidder wins the bid. Of course, other factors not considered here have actually been passed during the qualification examination, but they are not considered in the evaluation of bids, and therefore they are not the decisive factors in the success or failure of the bidder's competition.

2. Comprehensive bid evaluation method.

The comprehensive evaluation method is a comprehensive evaluation of factors such as the construction organization design (or construction plan), the qualifications and performance of the project manager, the quality, the construction period, the reputation and the performance to determine the evaluation and calibration method of the winning bidder. It is the most widely used evaluation and calibration method, and it is usually used everywhere.

According to the specific analysis methods, the comprehensive evaluation method can be divided into qualitative comprehensive evaluation method and quantitative comprehensive evaluation method.

3. Reasonable unit price evaluation method.

The "reasonable low price bid evaluation method" should be a rejection of the "lowest price winning bid" bid evaluation method, which has the side of optimizing competition, and abandoning the side of vicious competition that cannot be eliminated, so as to achieve the purpose of orderly competition. At present, how to exclude the vicious bidding below the cost from the bidding price is the main task faced by the "reasonable low price bid evaluation method". Therefore, it can be considered that the "reasonable low bid evaluation method" is the bid evaluation method for selecting the lowest bid candidate to win the bid under the premise that the bidders meet the substantive requirements of the bidding documents, and in the first of not less than the individual cost of the enterprise.

After the bid evaluation results are submitted to the procurement owner for approval, the tendering unit will announce the bid evaluation results (actually the bidding results) in the form of a notice of winning the bid or a notice of the bidding results.

The so-called bid evaluation refers to the process of evaluating and comparing and analyzing the bidding documents of each bidder in accordance with the prescribed bid evaluation standards and methods, and selecting the best bidder.

Bid evaluation is a very important stage in the bidding and bidding activities, whether the bid evaluation is truly fair and just, determines whether the entire bidding and bidding activities are fair and just; The quality of the bid evaluation determines whether the winning bidder can be selected from the many bidding competitors that can best meet the requirements of the bidding project.

The evaluation of the bid is the object of the family, and the seven aunts and eight aunts will check it.

No.

First of all, the relevant laws and regulations make it clear that there is no major illegal record in business activities, dishonest executors and other credit records belong to the qualification and the threshold for entering the ** procurement market. According to the notice of the Ministry of Finance on issues related to the inquiry and use of credit records in ** procurement activities (Cai Ku 2016 No. 125), the credit records of relevant entities should be used as the basis for the review of the qualifications of the first business, and the qualifications should be used as the evaluation factor, which violates the provisions of Article 55 of the "Qualification Conditions shall not be used as evaluation factors" in the Administrative Measures for the Bidding and Bidding of Procurement of Goods and Services (Order No. 87 of the Ministry of Finance, hereinafter referred to as Order No. 87). It is paradoxical for an element to be used as both a qualification criterion and a scoring factor in the same project.

Article 55 of Order No. 87 stipulates that "the setting of evaluation factors shall be related to the quality of the goods and services provided by the bidder, including bidding, technical or service level, performance ability, after-sales service, etc." Qualifications shall not be used as a factor in the evaluation". Therefore, it is illegal to set credit as a factor in this case.

Secondly, whether the merchant lost the lawsuit due to labor disputes and other civil litigation records has nothing to do with the performance of the property management service contract in this bidding, which violates the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Procurement Law: "The qualifications, technologies and business conditions set are not compatible with the specific characteristics and actual needs of the procurement project or have nothing to do with the performance of the contract".

Summary. Dear, <>

Hello, I'm glad to be able to answer this question for you. The bidder's credit evaluation publicity has important reference significance in the bidding management and evaluation, and can be regarded as a part of the bidding pre-examination. From the perspective of bidding supervision and management, the credit evaluation publicity can reflect the integrity and credibility of the bidder to a certain extent, which helps the purchaser to have a comprehensive understanding and judgment of the bidder before the bid evaluation, so it can be considered as a part of the pre-bid examination.

However, it is difficult to directly use the information of credit evaluation as the basis for evaluating whether the bid is won, and the technical and commercial aspects of the bidding documents need to be considered. In practice, the purchaser can pre-qualify the bidder through the credit evaluation publicity to screen out the bidders who obviously do not meet the requirements and ensure their qualifications and ability to participate in the bidding. However, in the specific bidding document review stage, the jury should focus on the content and standards in the bidding documents, and should not rely too much on the results of credit evaluation.

Otherwise, it is easy to generate subjective will, which affects the fairness of the bid evaluation.

Is the bidding credit evaluation publicity considered a review?

Dear, <>

Hello, I'm glad to be able to answer this question for you. The bidder's credit evaluation publicity has important reference significance in the bidding management and evaluation, and can be regarded as a part of the bidding pre-examination. From the perspective of bid supervision and management, the credit evaluation publicity can reflect the integrity and credibility of the bidder to a certain extent, which helps the purchaser to have a comprehensive understanding and judgment of the bidder before the bid evaluation, so it can be considered that it belongs to the pre-examination of the bid.

However, it is difficult to directly use the information of credit evaluation as the basis for evaluating whether the bid is won, and it is necessary to consider the technical and commercial aspects of the bidding documents. In practice, the purchaser can pre-qualify the bidder through the credit evaluation publicity, so as to screen out the bidders who obviously do not meet the requirements and ensure that they can participate in the bidding with high qualifications and capabilities. However, in the specific bidding document review stage, the jury should focus on the content and standards in the bidding documents, and should not rely too much on the results of credit evaluation.

Otherwise, it is easy to generate subjective will, which affects the fairness of the bid evaluation.

Legal basis: Article 22 of the Bidding and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the bid evaluation shall review the bidding documents and determine the winning bidder according to the evaluation results.

The law does not explicitly include the bidder's credit evaluation information in the basis of bid evaluation, so it is difficult to directly use credit evaluation as the legal basis for evaluating orange bids. Article 29 of the Procurement Law stipulates that the evaluation committee shall evaluate the bidding documents that meet the bidding documents in accordance with the evaluation methods and standards determined in the bidding documents.

The law also does not make the bidder's credit evaluation the basis for evaluation, and the bid evaluation should be based on the requirements of the bidding documents and the bidding documents. Article 18 of the "Bid Selection Measures" stipulates that the bid evaluation committee shall review the bid documents in accordance with the evaluation methods and standards determined in the bidding documents.

The evaluation of bids is based on the substantive content of the bidding documents. The provision also confirms that the evaluation of tenders should be based on the content of the tender documents.

Summary. Hello, I'm glad to have your question, is the bidding credit evaluation public considered a review Answer: Dear, hello! <>

Yes, the publicity of bid credit evaluation belongs to the scope of evaluation. According to the "Procurement Review Measures" and the "Interim Measures for Procurement Review", the scope of the review includes the qualification review of the bidder and the review of the bidding documents, in which the bidder's qualification review should consider the bidder's credit status, and the credit evaluation publicity is the public evaluation of the bidder's credit status. Therefore, the publicity of bidding credit evaluation is an important part of the evaluation process.

Is the bidding credit evaluation publicity considered a review?

Hello, I'm glad to have your question, is the bidding credit evaluation public considered a review Answer: Dear, hello! <>

Yes, the publicity of bid credit evaluation belongs to the scope of evaluation. According to the "Procurement Review Measures" and the "Interim Measures for Procurement Review", the scope of the review includes the bidder's qualifications and qualifications and the review of the bidding documents, in which the bidder's qualification review should consider the bidder's credit status, and the credit evaluation publicity is the public evaluation of the bidder's credit status. Therefore, the publicity of bidding credit evaluation is an important part of the evaluation process.

Extended supplement: **Procurement review is a relatively complex process, which requires a comprehensive consideration of multiple factors, including the bidder's technical strength, financial status, credit history, etc. The credit evaluation publicity is an objective evaluation of the bidder's credit status by an authoritative organization, and each bidder's credit evaluation publicity has different levels, which is directly related to whether the bidder can successfully win the bid.

Therefore, before bidding, bidders need to carefully check the credit evaluation publicity, and evaluate and improve according to their actual situation. <>

Hello, 1. Take the initiative to fill in the real enterprise credit information information such as qualifications, licenses, market operations, contract performance, and social welfare on the national credit information platform and the "credit platform" in the region, and open credit reporting services, and fill in the missing credit information in a timely manner. 2. Brother La's establishment of a credit management system for approval ledgers, clue ledgers, problem ledgers, and entire group cover-up ledgers. The credit evaluation team within the enterprise holds regular meetings to evaluate the matters and personnel in the company that meet the credit plus or minus points, and applies for the increase or decrease of credit scores to the relevant departments in a timely manner.

For example, as long as the "handling process and rectification of problematic products" are performed in accordance with laws and regulations, and the original unqualified information can be updated after being re-tested and qualified by the authoritative department. 3. Enterprises can get high marks in innovation ability by declaring the following items:

First, 2 points can be awarded for authorized invention patents. Second, declare the provincial construction method and industry construction method. Taking Guangdong Province as an example, enterprises get 2 points for working wheels or attack methods, and 1 point for QC group activity achievement awards at the national level and provincial level.

1st and 2nd prizes. Third, apply for enterprise technology centers at or above the municipal level. Enterprises with internal R&D institutions get 6 points, have provincial technology centers get 1 point, and fourth, declare national high-tech enterprises.

The scoring criteria vary from place to place, with a maximum score of 8. Fifth, apply for the municipal level and above quality engineering awards. For example, enterprises in Anhui Province won 8 points, 6 points and 2 points respectively for national, provincial and municipal quality awards such as Luban Prize and Huangshan Cup; Shanghai enterprises can receive up to 5 points for awards.

Sixth, apply for the provincial construction industry new technology application demonstration project. For example, if an enterprise in Guangdong Province declares a science and technology demonstration project in the building decoration industry, 1 point will be awarded at the provincial level or above, and a score will be scored at the municipal level. Hope it helps.

Summary. 70 points for design scheme, qualification, performance, etc.; Bid** (rate) 30 points.

In the standard, the "bidding**" score is set to 30 points, and the overall proportion is not too low, but the scoring rules of "bidding**" are as follows: "the bidder's effective ** is equal to the benchmark price of the bid evaluation (note: the arithmetic average of each bidder**) is 27 points, and the bidder's effective ** compared with the benchmark price, every 1% of the increase will be deducted, and a maximum of 3 points will be deducted; Every 1% of the increase in points, plus to the full score of 30 points, less than 1% according to the insertion method", according to the rules, the highest and lowest scores of the bid ** at most 6 points, that is, the highest ** and the lowest ** at most 6 points. Such a scoring standard setting, the bid ** has little impact on the bid evaluation results, and the impact on the bid evaluation results is still a highly subjective design scheme and other scores.

The 6-point bidding ** gap (personal opinion: less than 10 points is not big), it is easy to pull back through subjective points. The project also works in this way, with the highest unit bidding scoring 24, but winning the bid by a margin of points through other scoring.

The unreasonableness of the bidding and bidding of the construction credit evaluation scoring standard.

70 points for design scheme, qualification, performance, etc.; Bid** (rate) 30 points. In the standard, the "bidding**" score is set to 30 points, and the overall proportion is not too low, but the scoring rules of "bidding**" are as follows: "the bidder's effective ** is equal to the benchmark price of the bid evaluation (note: the arithmetic average of each bidder**) is 27 points, and the bidder's effective ** compared with the benchmark price, every 1% of the increase will be deducted, and a maximum of 3 points will be deducted; Add liquid hole points for every 1% of the float, add to the full score of 30 points, and less than 1% is calculated according to the insertion method", according to the detailed rules, the highest and lowest scores of the bid ** are at most 6 points, that is, the difference between the highest ** and the lowest ** is at most 6 points.

Such a scoring standard setting, the bid ** has little impact on the bid evaluation results, and the evaluation of the bid evaluation results is still highly subjective design schemes and other scores. The 6-point bidding ** gap (personal opinion: less than 10 points is not big), it is easy to pull back through subjective points.

The highest unit bid scored 24, but won the bid by a score of 24 through other scoring.

The above two scoring criteria are not very reasonable, both of which are to reduce the impact of the bidding score on the bid evaluation results, and the score ratio is lowered or the score difference is narrowed, so that the main attack on the view of the score plays a decisive role and realizes "controllable bidding". Although the above two Zen projects are engineering service bidding, this kind of bidding is likely to have a clear intention of the unit, the bidding is just a process, in order to ensure that the person who wants to win the bid, so such a scoring setting is adopted, but so set the scoring standard will be "fake bidding" betrayed, it seems too fake, so from the perspective of fraud, this scoring standard setting is not advisable.