The "Measures for the Administration of Tendering and Bidding for Government Procurement of Goods and Services" stipulates that "for content in the bidding documents that has unclear meanings, inconsistent expressions of similar issues, or obvious textual and calculation errors, the bid evaluation committee may submit the bid in writing (should (signed by experts from the bid evaluation committee) requires the bidder to make necessary clarifications, explanations or corrections.
It can be seen that problem clarification is not only an important link in the bid evaluation work, but also how the quality of the clarification directly affects the comparison and evaluation. In this stage of work, the author found that in the evaluation practice of bidding documents, due to the influence of various subjective and objective factors, there were some inappropriate and non-standard practices in the process of problem clarification.
1. Due to the mentality of protecting their shortcomings or fear of causing trouble, some judges ignore errors in suppliers' bidding documents without making corrections or clarifications; there are also some experts who fail to follow the law during the clarification process and leave sequelae.
Some review experts went straight to the topic during the review without considering the issue clarification process, turning a blind eye to the content that should be clarified in the supplier's bid document, or even though the clarification process was carried out, they still summarized the review with questions. It seems that the review experts mainly focus on the following issues in the process of clarifying the relevant issues in the bidding documents.
From a time perspective, according to regulations, the issue clarification work should end at the qualification review and compliance review. Finally, substantive comparisons are carried out before the review. However, in actual work, some review experts are "ahead" and some are "lag behind" in clarifying issues. What's more, some review experts are in the bid evaluation work. China clarifies and evaluates at the same time, resulting in disorder and chaos in the bid evaluation work, which seriously affects the fairness of the bid evaluation results and the efficiency and quality of the bid evaluation work.
From the specific procedures, under normal circumstances, the problem is clarified. The procedure should be for the review experts to first raise questions that require explanations from the bidders, and then the bidders will clarify, explain or make corrections to these issues. The author found that during the review process of some projects, after the bid opening, the review experts have not yet By asking a question, the bidder takes the initiative to ask for a frank explanation of the default and vague questions in the bidding document.
From the perspective of the subject of clarification, the questioner should be the review expert and the respondent should be the bidder. Sometimes the question is asked. The subject of clarification will also change positions. The questioning party is often acted by the handling staff or notary of the procurement agency, while the responding party is often not the bidder or the authorized person. The bidder's accompanying persons and entourage will also be listed on the reply. "Signature and painting"
Judging from the content of the clarification, "the scope of the bid document shall not be exceeded or the substantive content of the bid document shall not be changed" is the first principle that bidders must adhere to when making clarifications, but a considerable number of bids People are not very disciplined when clarifying relevant issues, or answer beyond the scope or change the substantive content, deliberately confusing the experts' ideas for bid evaluation, and these self-concealed "smart" practices are tantamount to superfluous.
From the perspective of the form of clarification, both requesting and making clarifications must be in writing. Some bidders and review experts are afraid of trouble and want to save trouble. They mostly use simple oral inquiries and responses, and there is no record or recording. Government procurement supervision and management departments often encounter the problem of lack of verification during routine inspections.
From the perspective of confidentiality of clarification, the business secrets of bidding suppliers are often involved in the process of problem clarification. These business secrets are generally not known to others. The review experts must protect them when clarifying. The review experts will use a collective clarification method when clarifying, that is, convening all bidders at the same time and place to clarify relevant issues and making the relevant issues public.
Judging from the rigor of the clarification, some judges took advantage of the clarification to secretly help a certain "related party" and help the "related party" "make up for" the flaws in the bidding documents. The bidders will be fully aware of this. Seize the opportunity to revise this substantive content.
2. After entering the review process, when faced with errors in the supplier's bidding documents, the correct implementation of the problem clarification process not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of the supplier who made the mistake, but also allows the supplier to feel the humanistic care of the law. And more importantly, it improves the quality of review and promotes fair and orderly competition among government procurement market entities.
First of all, as a legal procedure for government procurement review, problem clarification is absolutely not allowed to be omitted at will, and it must not be done carelessly. The judges must realize the importance of problem clarification.
Only when the existing problems in the bidding documents are clarified can the next evaluation process be entered. Any judge, including evaluation experts and purchaser representatives, must make good use of the evaluation power in their hands with caution, both Be responsible for the bidding suppliers and yourself. It is extremely irresponsible to conduct the review with questions. The reviewers should keep a clear head and a good professionalism.
Secondly, problem clarification can only be carried out within the legal scope. Any clarification beyond the scope, especially the clarification that changes the substantive content of the bidding document, is itself an illegal act. The clarification of problems is limited to the clarification of the bidding documents. Contents with unclear meanings, inconsistent expressions of similar issues, or obvious textual and calculation errors must not exceed the scope of the bidding document, let alone change the substantive content of the bidding document.
Again, problem clarification can only achieve effective results by standardizing procedures.
When clarifying relevant issues in the bidding documents, review experts must follow standardized procedures and clarify clearly, unambiguously, thoroughly, and without leaving any traces.
Time must be grasped. Issue clarification should be carried out after the preliminary review is completed and before the comparative evaluation begins. It cannot be advanced or lagging behind, nor can it be clarified while reviewing. The question clarification questioner should be the evaluation expert, and the respondent should be the bidder or its authorized representative. If there are questions, you must answer them. If there are no questions, you will not answer. It is extremely unwise for the bidders to take the initiative to confess.
Evaluation experts and bidders are parties in the process of clarification of issues stipulated by law. Without authorization, others cannot do it for them. What is particularly important is that the bidding and procurement agency must position itself correctly in the bidding activities and not be mixed up. and disrupting the normal bid evaluation order.
Question clarification, whether it is a question or a reply, should be in writing. The question letter should be signed by the evaluation expert, and the reply letter should be signed by the bidder or its authorized representative.
Finally, when clarifying issues, we must strictly prevent the judges from derailing. The director of the bid evaluation committee and on-site supervisors must strictly control the entire process of clarification. Individual review experts must not be allowed to take the opportunity to protect one or certain bidders. Experts who deliberately violate regulations must be reported and exposed without mercy and resolutely stopped. If the situation is serious, they should be replaced on the spot.
At the same time, we must pay attention to confidentiality, fully respect the legitimate rights and interests of suppliers during the issue clarification process, and pay attention to protecting the business secrets of bidding suppliers. We must clarify vague issues and do not make matters related to the survival of suppliers The secrets of development are revealed to the public.