Common issues in tender document preparation
Common issues: incomplete technical specification parameters (key parameters such as working pressure and protection rating not specified); parameters set too high or too low (too high resulting in insufficient bidders, too low resulting in performance not meeting requirements); unreasonable brand restrictions (specifying brands or setting directional parameters); contract terms manifestly unfair (harsh payment conditions, excessive penalty clauses); unscientific bid evaluation methods (unreasonable technical weighting, scoring not quantified). Solutions: adequate market research; allow a deviation range of no less than 5%; performance-based description; reference GF-2017-0201; hundred-point comprehensive evaluation method.
Misconceptions in setting technical parameters
Common misconceptions: copying design drawing parameters without considering selection rationality; excessive margin coefficients leading to oversized capacity; energy efficiency indicators set too low or too high; special conditions (high altitude, high humidity) not considered; performance testing standards unclear. Solutions: base parameters on design results combined with supplier feedback; margin coefficient 1.05-1.15; energy efficiency indicators comply with mandatory requirements of GB 50189; special conditions with correction methods specified in tender documents; testing standards with clear standard numbers and operating conditions.
Common issues in the bid evaluation process
Common issues: evaluation criteria not refined leading to subjective expert scoring; imbalance in technical and commercial weights leading to unreasonable award; insufficient identification and prevention of vicious low-price competition; non-standard clarification affecting fairness. Solutions: scoring criteria refined to specific indicators and scores; technical weight of core equipment increased to 40%-50%; set maximum price limit and cost warning line (those below require cost analysis); clarifications conducted in writing with equal opportunity.
Disputes and resolution during contract execution
Common disputes: delivery delays affecting schedule; technical parameters inconsistent with contract; transport damage or quality defects; interface mismatch; unclear responsibility for failures during warranty period. Solutions: contract sets liquidated damages for delayed delivery (0.1%-0.3%/day); dual confirmation of technical parameters via FAT and SAT; unpacking inspection within 48 hours of arrival; interface issues confirmed through technical disclosure; warranty period failures with clear identification procedures and responsibility allocation.