论文部分内容阅读
案情在一起诉讼中,某科技公司诉称,招标公司受矿业公司委托对轮辋拆装机公开招标,只有科技公司和设备公司投标,最终设备公司中标。此次投标人数少于法定的三人,依法应重新招标,但招标公司未重新招标而确定设备公司为中标人。且招标公司未公开评标标准,未对评标项目进行权重分数分配,致使科技公司在所有条件都满足要求且投标价比设备公司低13%的情况下却综合排名第二,导致其投标失败。招标公司此行为严
Case together with the lawsuit, a technology company claimed that the tender company commissioned by the mining company on the rim disassembly machine open tender, only technology companies and equipment companies bid, the final equipment company won the bid. The number of bidders less than the statutory three, according to the law should be re-bidding, but the tender company did not re-bid to determine the equipment company as the successful bidder. And the bidding company did not open the evaluation standard, did not distribute the weight of the bid evaluation items, resulting in the technology companies in all conditions to meet the requirements and the bidding price of 13% lower than the case of the company was second overall ranking, resulting in the tender failure . Tender company this behavior is strict