In the popular Chinese New Year movie "Journey to the West: Conquering Demons," there is a line that has become popular: "The longest journey is the master's tricks." Tang Sanzang, who was once weak and gentle, also learned acting and fiercely "tricked" the demon. In bidding, it's not a fixed party who can play tricks. Whether you are a tenderer or a bidder, there is a risk of being deceived. The routine of the tenderer is that the tenderer, also known as the first party, is a god like existence who works hard to build relationships and prepare bids, working tirelessly to win their favor. Most bidders are quite fair and just, but there are always some 'gods' who deviate and collude with other bidders, turning months of hard work into a' running with you '. 1. Leakage Law: ① Disclosing relevant information about other bidders; ② Leakage of base bid price, leakage of evaluation results, leakage of key personnel list, such as qualification review committee or evaluation committee list. 2. Special customization method: ① Tailored terms with obvious bias for a bidder to control the bid; ② Conduct substantive negotiations with a certain supplier before bidding; ③ After the deadline for submitting bidding documents, bidders are required to supplement, replace, or modify their bidding documents, as well as change their quotations (including modifying relevant data in electronic bidding documents). 3. Organizing bidders to collude in bidding, such as lowering or raising the bid price, if the winning bidder has already been determined before the bidding process The tenderer divides an established section into multiple sections, and then arranges the internally selected winning bidder in different sections to ensure that the interests of all parties are shared equally Let the tenderer and the bidding agency make separate agreements, such as providing cost compensation to other bidders who did not win the bid; ④ The tenderer instructs their designated unqualified company to negotiate with a qualified company and bid in the name of the qualified company. After winning the bid, the unqualified company will perform the contract. 4. Instructing, implying, or forcing the evaluation committee to provide biased guidance Instruct the bidding agency to provide assistance to the selected winning bidder and treat them differently. 5. Price method ① adopts fraudulent methods, winning bids at a price significantly lower than the cost price, and then increasing the final settlement price through means such as changing service volume during project implementation. 6. Pretending to be foolish: ① The tenderer discovers a bidder representative signing the names of multiple bidders on the bid opening record without stopping them; ② The tenderer found that the legal representatives, authorized agents, project leaders, project directors, and other personnel of different bidders have paid social insurance in the same unit and did not stop them, but instead agreed to continue participating in the bidding; ③ If the tenderer discovers that there are several interested parties with the same person or interest relationship who bring enterprise information of two or more bidders (including two) to participate in qualification review, receive bidding materials, or represent two or more bidders (including two) to participate in bidding Q&A meetings, they are deemed absent and agree to continue participating in bidding; ④ If the tenderer discovers during the qualification review or bid opening that the bidding materials (including electronic materials) of different bidders are mixed with each other and does not stop it, but instead agrees to allow them to pass the qualification review or continue to participate in the evaluation; ⑤ During the bid opening, it was discovered that there were obvious signs of collusion in the bidder's quotation, and the evaluation committee turned a blind eye to it. The committee also instructed the judges to continue the evaluation.
7. Without hesitation method: ① For projects evaluated using the lowest bid evaluation method, if the unsuccessful company raises questions, the bidding and procurement unit still maintains the original evaluation results after reconsideration; ② The tenderer refuses to sign a contract with the winning candidate without justifiable reasons. The routine of bidders: 1. Brotherhood agreement: ① Bidders agree with each other in advance on who wins the bid, who accompanies the bid, and who abandons the bid; ② Mutual agreement, pricing strategy, and bidding strategy; ③ Mutual agreement to provide cost compensation to unsuccessful bidders; ④ The bidding company is generally a joint venture company between the legal representatives of bidders; Or companies that are members of the same group, parent company, association, or other organizations; Or interest alliance companies, etc. The above behavior is very covert, but through some clues, clues can also be revealed! 2. Accompanying bidding characteristics: ① The total bid price of different bidders is abnormally consistent, or significantly different, or shows regular changes; ② The total bid prices of different bidders are similar, but the itemized prices are unreasonable and there is no reasonable explanation; ③ Intentionally abandoning the bid, the winning bidder abandoning the bid without justifiable reasons, or failing to sign a contract with the tenderer in accordance with regulations; ④ Intentionally producing invalid bidding documents in accordance with the invalid bidding terms specified in the bidding documents; ⑤ Bidders who have participated in the registration and purchase of bidding documents three or more times within one year shall not submit bidding documents or attend the bid opening meeting; ⑥ Prior to the deadline for submitting bid documents, multiple bidders issued statements of withdrawal almost simultaneously The bid security deposits of different bidders shall be paid from the same account funds; ⑧ Multiple bidders using the same person or enterprise to issue a bid bond; ⑨ Similar after-sales service terms; ⑩ Intentionally omitting the signature of the legal representative or the signature of the legal representative in the bidding documents from the same person. Layout completed, but often makes fatal detail errors! 3. The "stupid" exposure method: ① The bidding documents are surprisingly identical, such as the same format, font, and table color; ② The errors in the bidding documents are surprisingly consistent, even the mistakes are the same; ③ In electronic bidding, the IP addresses registered by different bidders are the same, or the IP addresses are in a specific area; ④ The bidding documents of different bidders shall be prepared by the same computer or printed by the same auxiliary equipment; ⑤ The binding form, thickness, cover, etc. of the bidding documents are similar or even identical; ⑥ In the bidding documents of a bidder, documents containing the name of another bidder are bound, such as the appearance of another bidder's legal representative or authorized agent's signature, stamped with another bidder's official seal, etc The bidder's representative does not know the phone number of the company's CEO; ⑧ The bidder's representative trembled while signing, and the name they signed did not match the name on their business card Different bidders rode in the same car before the bid opening, chatting and laughing, but pretended not to know each other at the bid opening site. The routine of the evaluation experts: 1. Non action method. ① The evaluation experts found that there were discrepancies in the bidding documents that did not comply with the bidding documents, but did not point them out. ② The evaluation experts found obvious unreasonable quotations in the bidding quotation and did not point them out; ③ The reviewing experts found obvious irrationality or missing content in the technical section and did not point it out. 2. Special treatment method: ① The evaluation experts know that they have a vested interest in the bidder and do not actively recuse themselves; ② The concealed part of the bidding documents has been marked by the bidder with special markings (most likely intentionally marked for a certain expert to see); ③ When the evaluation experts evaluate the scores, without reasonable reasons, they intentionally give a high score to one bidder and lower the scores of other bidders, or do not score according to the bidding documents.
