Although it is clearly stipulated in "Bidding Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)" and "Interim Provisions on Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Evaluation Method" promulgated in 2000 that the lowest bid price method and comprehensive evaluation method can be used for bid evaluation, it is extremely rare to actually adopt the former method. The reason is that the former is too objective, which makes it difficult for the tenderee to control the bidding results, while the latter scores more than one third, which makes the tenderee's operating space much larger. At present, it is not uncommon for bidders to violate the principle of fairness. Some bidders do not meet the requirements, and the members of the expert group are appointed by themselves; Others list some clauses that are obviously beneficial to individual units in the bidding documents; In other cases, the investor's experts clearly expressed their support for a tenderer when evaluating bids.
The tendentiousness of the tenderee comes from the following three reasons: First, sacrificing price to ensure quality. Within the scope permitted by the policy, the tenderee is unwilling to bear any quality risk, which leads to the distortion of the project cost performance. Our country adopts lifelong responsibility system for project quality, but the corresponding restrictions on project cost are not strict. "Spend money to ensure quality" is the most popular slogan in the construction industry, which seems reasonable, but in fact it is a great waste, and it also opens the door for "power rent-seeking" in engineering construction. You don't have to be responsible for how much money you spend, and the money is not your own, so investors naturally won't feel bad; Secondly, the tenderee considers the construction enterprises in the industry. As mentioned above, in the case that the industrial sector is the investor, its subordinate construction enterprises will inevitably have a certain impact on the decision-making of the tenderee by virtue of their good relations with the competent authorities for many years. Perhaps this is not the original intention of the tenderer, but it is inevitable in practice. Finally, it is "seeking the root of power." Because of more objective evaluation criteria, it is more difficult to conduct "rent-seeking" activities. If only the "lowest bid price" is used as the bid evaluation standard, investors' ability to control the bidding results will be greatly reduced, which means that the winning bid will be completely decided by the market. The power of investors will be greatly weakened, and the cost of "trading power and money" will be greatly increased. Therefore, in recent years, although the state has repeatedly asked investors to fade out of the specific bidding work, this is the reason why investors are unwilling to hand over their rights.
The operation of the transaction subject is not standardized.
The two parties to the transaction are not independent market entities. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates: "Bidders and bidders shall not collude with each other. The contractor is an important subject of the transaction in the construction market, but in the bidding activities, this kind of transaction has formed a tacit understanding, that is, the "geographical" advantage. For example, some construction enterprises are restructured enterprises under a certain commission, office, bureau or farm or park, or a construction enterprise has a close relationship with an owner, so other construction enterprises will not bid because of their unfamiliar relationship or private work. And form unwritten rules, bidding with each other's qualifications. I'll help you this time, and next time you help me with my property, because concealment is difficult to investigate. At present, some individuals in the construction market participate in project bidding in the name of legal persons. Because the threshold of the construction industry is not high, they can enter the qualification management of the industry. Some enterprises lend their qualifications in order to increase their performance or charge a certain management fee, and even some state-owned enterprises with high qualifications have economic benefits in order to take care of the relationship. Enterprise managers also have hidden income and loan qualifications, which leads to the prevalence of the current construction market.
Lack of sense of responsibility in prequalification
Pre-qualification is a procedure in the bidding process. Most tenderers or tendering agencies attach importance to prequalification, and some standards and methods compiled are also feasible. However, in practical work, we found that the tendering units still lack some sense of responsibility in prequalification:
① Randomness: When organizing bidding activities, the tenderee didn't really realize the importance of prequalification, and took a try attitude towards prequalification: if there are less than seven bidders, prequalification will not be conducted; If there are more than seven companies, they will prepare the prequalification documents in a hurry. This is neither standardized nor scientific, wasting manpower and material resources;
(2) Blindness: The tenderee has insufficient understanding of the prequalification work, and thinks that all bidders can participate in the bidding as long as the bidding qualification level meets the requirements of the project subject to tender. For a project with an investment of tens of millions of yuan, the number of enterprises participating in bidding may sometimes reach thirty or forty. In this case, it will also cause the waste of manpower and material resources of bidders, bidders and management departments. Make everyone mistakenly think that bidding will only make the work procedure more complicated and will not bring good investment benefits;
③ unscientific: sometimes, in order to save trouble, the tenderee simply selects bidders to participate in the bidding of the project by drawing lots without pre-qualification of the enterprises that have applied for bidding. On the surface, it may be fair to adopt this method. The owner did not specify the finalist, but this method is very unscientific in nature. All bidders bid with the mentality of gambling luck, losing the normative and scientific nature of bidding in the true sense. Moreover, enterprises with high qualification level, excellent performance and good reputation will not be able to participate in bidding.
The implementation and supervision of the bidding office are not strong enough.
At present, the bidding office mainly relies on the Bidding Law, the Construction Law, the decrees of relevant ministries and local regulations to supervise the bidding work, but it lacks detailed implementation rules in actual work. First of all, from the flexible provisions of the law, it provides the tenderer (bidding agency) with the opportunity of "behind-the-scenes operation"; Secondly, public bidding projects are registered online by enterprises through passwords, and several main links of bidding must have the official seal of the legal person and the power of attorney sealed by the legal representative before bidding. The procedure is legal, and it is very difficult to obtain evidence when investigating bidding enterprises. Then, from the administrative point of view, there is no effective means to regulate the behavior of project owners and find illegal behaviors. The only means is punitive and negative means, which is very difficult to implement.