First, the definition of bid-rigging and crosstalk
The bid-rigging usually refers to several bidders agree with each other, the unanimity can be raised or lowered in the way of corporate bidding to analyze the bid. It is illegal for bidders to seek illegal profits by limiting competition, crowding out other bidders, and letting interested parties win the bid.
Scrambling refers to the bidding agency, one or more bidders, by drawing up tendentious bidding documents in advance, divulging the list of internal evaluation committee, and intentionally hitting the wrong bidders' scores.
Bid-rigging and bid-rigging on the black box operation as the main means to achieve the purpose of illegal benefits for the purpose of the main purpose of the bidding system caused great harm, the difference is that collusive bidding is mainly to the bidder's horizontal connection for the possession of the attributes of a number of bidders between the multi-level, multi-directional, multi-means of vertical joint three-dimensional crime, involves a wide range of governance is relatively complex.
Second, the characteristics and governance of bid-rigging behavior.
Before discussing this topic, the introduction of two definitions:The phenomenon of bid-rigging up is called bid-rigging people, involved in carrying out bid-rigging bidders are called bid-rigging people. There are several methods of bid rigging.
A bid for multiple links.
A bidder has more than one bidder between the bidding on a key enterprise bidding, bid-rigging people uniformly formulate the bid, accompanying the bidder to provide signatures, seals, etc.. The cost of this bid-rigging to accompany the bidder is relatively low. This method is mainly applicable to small and medium-sized projects or materials and equipment with an investment of not more than 30 million yuan. As a unit produces multiple tender documents, many similarities are often found in the tender documents of different bidders. Common similarities are the same construction program, the same format of the bidding documents, the same points of error, and proportional adjustments to the quoted price. There are also relatively low ones if the project team members are the same.
This siege is relatively simple, there are two main aspects:First, to strengthen the evaluation committee's sense of responsibility, and never condone the similarities in the bidding documents; second, the offer score to the lowest effective price to get the highest score. Some people may say that this is prone to malicious bid-rigging. In fact, as long as a little flexibility, the average price (or a certain percentage of downward fluctuation) as the benchmark value, below the benchmark value will be full marks. In this way, the bidder may also win the bid (this problem is naturally solved). If the offer score is scored in this way, only fools will surround the bid.
We can check the bid before bidding to prevent bid tampering, and currently tocheck provides free bid checking services.