During the bidding process, what situations did you encounter that led to being deemed as involved in bid rigging? The more complete, the better

Cases of bid rigging include, but are not limited to: :lol 1. Bid documents that are very similar to each other, with identical content and format. 2. The bid prices are abnormally close to or exactly the same. 3. There are financial transactions or personal relationships among the bidders. 4. Before and after the bidding, there are improper meetings or communications among the bidders. 5. Enterprises enter into division of labor agreements to clarify their respective scope and share of the contracts won. 6. Occurrence of leaks of critical information to specific bidders during the bidding process. 7. Bidding companies submit false bidding documents or supporting materials. .

One more thing: the editable electronic version of the bid document is by the same author.

All of the above is too simple. Most of the following situations can generally be investigated in detail. 1. The bidding experience requirements and qualification criteria were set after consideration by the design institute, as a result of which only about 3 companies met them. 2. The tender document includes qualification and performance requirements that are unrelated to the subject matter. 3. When the winning records of various manufacturers in a certain field are quite even – A wins project A, B wins project B, and C wins project C – it’s A’s turn this time. 4. The locations of the mobile phone numbers of several bidding salespeople are too similar.

The first two items are acts carried out by the bidding company, or in collusion with the client.

This practice is widespread throughout the construction phase of chemical plant projects, and its impact on prices is much greater than that of bid rigging; bid collusion is merely the simplest and most basic form of such manipulation. .

Such projects are mostly found in municipal and government financial initiatives; due to the relatively high technical barriers, chemical industry projects make use of bidding companies from the private sector less frequently.

Wrong; it’s precisely because of the high threshold associated with chemical engineering technology that this can be utilized more effectively. The manufacturer is more cooperative. Groan.

What are the situations of bid rigging? There are six such situations; regardless of whether suppliers collude or not, once any of these occur, it is immediately considered bid rigging, and the bids are deemed invalid. The first situation is when the bid documents of different bidders are prepared by the same entity or individual. With the increasing specialization of tasks in today’s society, some companies may entrust third-party firms with the preparation of bid documents, which can lead to duplicate submissions. Therefore, suppliers should be vigilant against such mistakes. The second situation is when different bidders entrust the same entity or individual to handle their bidding matters. This is similar to the first situation, and if the same entity or individual is used to handle bidding affairs, the bids will be considered invalid. The third situation is when the project management members or contact persons listed in the bid documents of different bidders are the same person. Some suppliers claim that this is due to name similarities, but everyone has a unique ID number and social security record, so it’s easy to identify such cases. The fourth situation is when the bid documents of different bidders are unusually similar to each other, or when there are regular differences in their bid prices. It’s important to avoid such inconsistencies and patterns in bid documents. The fifth situation is when the bid documents of different bidders are mixed together. In the sixth guiding case issued by the Ministry of Finance, regarding a complaint related to a XX equipment procurement project, it was found that the bid documents of different bidders had overlapping seals, and no reasonable explanation could be provided; this constitutes mixing of bid documents from different bidders. The sixth situation is when the bid bonds of different bidders come from the same entity or individual’s account. Some suppliers enlist others to submit bids on their behalf, and while the bid bonds may come from different accounts, further investigation reveals that they all ultimately originate from the same account. The above are the situations related to bid rigging. In reality, there are many more illegal practices beyond those listed here, and bidders need to be especially careful to avoid them. In the future, only by continuing to advance the construction industry’s credit system can a fair and just market environment be created

Article 40 of the Implementing Regulations of the Bidding Law lists six circumstances that are considered as bid rigging. The industry holds different views on whether it is still necessary to initiate clarifications in the event of these six situations occurring in actual tenders. This article analyzes real-world cases and presents its own views and arguments. Bidders colluding with each other in bidding is one of the prominent problems in current bidding practices, severely undermining the seriousness of the bidding system as well as the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved in bidding activities. Collusive bidding is highly concealed, difficult to identify, and hard to investigate. To effectively combat collusive bidding, Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law employs the legislative technique of \"deemed to be\". For behaviors that have some objective external manifestation, the bid evaluation committee, administrative supervision agencies, judicial authorities, and arbitration institutions can directly determine that there is collusion among the bidders. Article 40 lists several forms of bid rigging by bidders, providing a basis for identifying and addressing such practices. In practice, the bid evaluation committee has different opinions regarding whether to initiate clarifications when it detects forms of bid collusion or suspected bid collusion, in order to avoid \"harming\" bidders inadvertently. Should clarification be initiated? In the case of different opinions or views within the industry, are there situations stipulated in Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law that are considered as bid-rigging, and is it still necessary to initiate clarification in such cases? There are two different views on this in the industry. The first view is that clarification should not be initiated. Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Interim Provisions on Bid Evaluation Committees and Bid Evaluation Methods (Order No. 12 issued by seven ministries) stipulates that the bid evaluation committee may, in writing, request the bidder to provide necessary clarifications, explanations, or corrections regarding contents in the bid document that are unclear in meaning, inconsistent in their presentation regarding similar issues, or contain obvious textual and calculation errors. Clarifications, explanations, or corrections shall be made in writing and must not go beyond the scope of the tender documents or alter their substantive content. ”Article 21 stipulates that \"during the bid evaluation process, if the bid evaluation committee finds that a bidder’s bid price is significantly lower than those of other bidders, or is significantly lower than the preset base price when one exists, to the extent that such bid price might be lower than the bidder’s individual costs, the committee shall require that bidder to provide a written explanation along with relevant supporting documents.\" If a bidder cannot provide a reasonable explanation or the relevant supporting documents, the bid evaluation committee shall determine that the bidder is bidding at a price lower than the cost, and such bid shall be rejected. ” Paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Law on Bidding and Tendering stipulates that \"if there are unclear contents, obvious typographical errors, or calculation mistakes in the tender documents, and the bid evaluation committee deems it necessary for the bidder to provide necessary clarifications or explanations, it shall notify such bidder in writing.\" The bidder’s clarifications and explanations shall be in written form, and must not go beyond the scope of the tender documents or alter the substantive content thereof. ” Experts holding this view argue that, in accordance with Article 19 and Article 21 of the Interim Provisions on Bid Evaluation Committees and Bid Evaluation Methods (Order No. 12 issued by seven ministries) and Article 52 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law, clarifications are limited to four situations: ambiguous meanings, inconsistent expressions of similar issues, obvious textual errors, and obvious calculation errors; furthermore, it is required that \"the bidder’s clarifications must not go beyond the scope of the bid documents or alter the substantive content of those documents.\" The circumstances of collusive bidding specified in Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law do not fall under any of these four categories. Some experts also believe that it is difficult to gather evidence of collusive bidding, and it is hard for the judges to make a determination. Since Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law already specifies the external manifestations of collusive bidding, as long as such manifestations are present, there is no need to initiate any clarification procedures; such cases can be directly classified as collusive bidding. The second view holds that the term “deemed” in Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law is a legislative technique, a legal fiction. Legal fiction is the practice of considering a certain fact, A, to be another fact, B, based on practical needs, so that it produces the same legal consequences as fact B; it cannot be refuted by counter-evidence, and therefore does not involve the issue of who bears the burden of proof. Legislators often use the phrase “deemed to be” to express legal fiction. The Interpretation of the Implementing Regulations on the Bidding Law explains this article as follows: “Two points need to be clarified: First, ‘regarded as’ is a legislative technique that treats phenomena with different objective manifestations as equivalent to each other; it is a legal fiction.” Nevertheless, the conclusion of ‘considering as’ is not entirely **irreversible and uncorrectable. To avoid errors in the application of the law, during the bid evaluation process, the evaluation committee may, as appropriate, give bidders the opportunity to provide clarifications or explanations ； After the bid evaluation is completed, bidders can seek administrative relief through complaints, with the administrative oversight authorities making a determination. Second, ‘regarding as’ must have certain objective external manifestations, and it is inappropriate to establish catch-all clauses. However, if there is other evidence proving that bidders colluded in bidding, the bid evaluation committee, administrative supervision agencies, arbitration institutions, and courts may make a determination in accordance with the law, not limited to the circumstances listed in this article. ”The Interpretation of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law adopts the second view. What needs to be clarified, and what can be directly classified as collusive bidding: 01. When the bid documents of different bidders are prepared by the same entity or individual. Opinion: This should be directly classified as collusive bidding. According to the interpretation of this provision in the \"Explanations to the Implementing Regulations of the Bidding Law,\" when the bid documents of different bidders are prepared by the same entity or individual, it falls under the situation described in Article 39, item (1) of the Implementing Regulations of the Bidding Law, which refers to bidders negotiating the substantive contents of their bid documents such as bid prices; this is an extreme form of collusive behavior among bidders regarding bid prices. Such as when the bid documents from different entities come from the same computer, or when the person who prepared the bid documents for different entities is the same, and so on. ” 02. When different bidders entrust the same entity or individual to handle their bidding matters: It is considered bid rigging outright. For example, in a public tender project, if an individual named A submits the bidding documents on behalf of both bidders A and B by the deadline for submissions. Upon inspection by the tenderer, the power of attorney submitted by both bidders authorized Party A to handle the submission of the tender documents on their behalf. In accordance with Article 22 of the Law on Bidding and Tendering, which states that \"the bidder shall not disclose to any third party the names and numbers of potential bidders who have obtained the bidding documents, nor any other information related to the bidding and tendering process that could affect fair competition,\" the names and numbers of bidders, as well as the content of the bidding documents, are considered confidential information intended to ensure the fairness and integrity of the bidding and tendering process. It violates the aforementioned regulations for different bidders to entrust the same entity or individual to handle their bidding matters. If, at the time of bid opening, a complaint is received from a bidder stating that the authorized representative of bidder A attending the bid opening meeting is an employee of bidder B, who is also a bidder for this project. Upon verification, the situation is true; bidders A and B are determined to have engaged in bid rigging. The Interpretation of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law includes the situation where, in the case of electronic bidding, the bidding documents are downloaded or the bid documents are uploaded from the IP address of the same bidding entity or the same natural person, under the category of different bidders entrusting the same entity or individual to handle bidding matters. Article 28 of the **Provisions on the Management of Bidding for Engineering Construction Projects in the New Area (Trial)**, which came into effect in January 2019, considers it as collusion among bidders if different bidders submit their electronic bid documents from the same IP address. 03. When the project management members listed in the bid documents of different bidders are the same person: The view is that it depends on the specific circumstances. The reason why the project management members listed in the bid documents of different bidders are the same person is that such bid documents were prepared by the same entity or individual; it is recommended to consider this as collusive bidding. The Interpretation of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Bidding Law also lists two other scenarios: one is when the same entity affiliates itself with another entity, submits bids in the name of different entities, and prepares bid documents accordingly” ； The second scenario is: when the same person is employed by different organizations, and given that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between personnel, especially key management personnel with registered professional qualifications, and the organizations they work for, the presence of the same person among the project management team members in a particular bidding project most likely indicates collusive bidding. The exception to the second scenario should be clarified. For example, in the evaluation of a construction tender project, a member of the judging panel noticed that among the project management personnel proposed by bidder A, there was someone with the qualification of a registered first-class constructor named Jia, who was also part of bidder B’s team; the name and ID number were exactly the same. After discussion, the bid evaluation committee issued clarifications to bidders A and B. It was ultimately discovered that this person, A, was an employee of bidder Company A; A used the registration fee to illegally assign the registered first-class constructor certificate, which was already registered with Company A, to Company B. Companies A and B submitted Party A for the project simultaneously without knowing each other. In the end, Company B was dealt with for fraud. 04. Abnormally high similarity between the bid documents of different bidders, or regular differences in their bid prices. Opinion: Clarification is recommended. It is relatively rare for the bid documents of different bidders to be abnormally similar, but such cases have indeed occurred in practice. For example: 1. In a publicly bid project for construction, the evaluation committee discovered during the evaluation process that bidder A had experience with a similar project, namely a pipeline project in ×× City, ×× Province; the project name, investment amount, location of construction, timeline, and name of the client were all exactly the same as those specified by another bidder, B, for this project. Some judges believe that, in accordance with Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law, if the bidding documents of different bidders are unusually similar, it can be considered as collusion among the bidders, and such a situation should be deemed as bid rigging. Some judges believed that the performance of those specific projects was indeed suspicious, but suggested looking for other signs of suspicion for further analysis, and recommended giving both bidders a chance to clarify their position. In this case, the bid evaluation committee carefully compared the bid documents of bidders A and B and found that, aside from having similar project experience, there were no other circumstances that could be considered as evidence of collusive bidding. In this regard, the bid evaluation committee issued clarification notices to bidders A and B respectively. After receiving the clarification notice, bidders A and B submitted to the evaluation committee documents such as the consortium bid agreement for the project and the award notice as proof. It turns out that the pipeline project in ×× City, ×× Province was participated in by two bidders through a joint bid,; therefore, for this project they submitted identical performance records, resulting in identical bid documents. 2. The tender documents for a certain communication optical cable construction project require bidders to submit construction organization plans in accordance with the requirements of the technical specifications. During the bid evaluation process, the evaluation committee found that the construction organization plans submitted by two of the bidders, A and B, were 60% identical to each other, with some sentences being exactly the same. There were disagreements among the members of the bid evaluation committee regarding how to handle this situation. The bid evaluation committee unanimously agreed that the construction organization plan is to be prepared by the bidder themselves; there should not be large similarities among such plans, and such situations should be treated as bid rigging. Some judges suggested clarification to avoid unintended harm. Upon clarification by the bidders, it turned out that the construction plan in question was one and the same, copied from a website by two different bidders. 3. In a public tender for a certain goods, the evaluators noticed that there was a regular pattern in the individual quotes submitted by two bidders: for example, the quote for connector A was 20 yuan while it was 25 yuan for bidder B; for the same type of goods, bidder B always quoted 5 yuan more than bidder A. The bid evaluation committee concluded that bidders A and B colluded in bidding on the grounds of regular differences in their bid prices, and reported the matter to the higher-level administrative supervision authority. The administrative supervision department received complaints from both bidder A and bidder B when imposing penalties on them. It turns out that bidder B collected A’s pricing information via the Internet and other legitimate channels, analyzed A’s pricing strategy, and then submitted its own bid for this project. Following verification by the administrative supervision authorities, there was no evidence of bid rigging between the two bidders. 05. Mixing of bid documents from different bidders: Opinion: It is recommended to classify this as collusive bidding. Such mixing of bid documents occurs only when bidders combine their documents together. The names of the bidders are kept confidential before the bid opening, and the bidders should not be aware of each other’s existence. If there is any mixing of bid documents, it should fall under the circumstances specified in Article 39 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law. Bidders may negotiate on substantive terms of the bid documents such as pricing, or agree on who will win the bid. Therefore, in such cases, it is recommended to directly determine it as bid rigging. 06. When the bid guarantees submitted by different bidders are transferred from the same account or owned by the same individual: It is recommended to consider this as an act of collusive bidding. Article 26 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law stipulates that for domestic bidders involved in projects that are required by law to be subject to bidding, the bid guarantees submitted in cash or by check must be transferred from their main bank accounts. ”A single entity can have only one basic account. The requirement in Article 26 that the guarantee fund must be transferred from the basic account is aimed at curbing bid rigging and collusive bidding. “\"The bid bonds of different bidders are transferred from the account of the same entity or individual\" is a response to Article 26. The author suggests that bidding is a process-oriented activity, and bid-rigging can occur at any stage of this series of processes. Paragraph 2 of Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Law on Bidding and Tendering, which deals with the situation where \"different bidders entrust the same entity or individual to handle bidding matters\", refers to bidding matters that include obtaining or purchasing prequalification documents and tender documents, preparing prequalification applications and bid documents, visiting the project site, attending preparatory meetings for bidding, submitting prequalification documents and bid documents, and attending the bid opening meeting. The law stipulates that the entities responsible for determining bid rigging are the bid evaluation committee, administrative supervision departments, arbitration bodies, and judicial authorities. If a certain entity or individual receives the tender documents on behalf of Bidder A and then represents Bidder B at the pre-bid meeting, waiting for the evaluation committee to make a decision after the bid opening will also result in losses for the bidder. Regarding such cases of suspected collusion among bidders that occur before the formation of the bid evaluation committee, the author suggests that the evaluation committee could be assembled in advance; the downside is that this takes longer time and may result in the disclosure of the list of members of the evaluation committee ； Second, submit the situation truthfully to the administrative supervision department, which will then conduct an investigation and verification ； Thirdly, it is recommended that relevant provisions in laws and regulations allow for the establishment of entities responsible for making such determinations, such as a procurement team temporarily formed by the tenderer to make judgments. Regarding clarifications related to collusive bidding, first, it is difficult for the bid evaluation committee to obtain evidence on its own; second, based solely on the clarifications provided by the bidders, the committee members sometimes cannot verify their authenticity, and thus cannot determine whether they are true or not. As a result, such cases may ultimately be classified as collusive bidding. Collusive bidding carries serious consequences; bidders have their bidding qualifications revoked, and in some cases their business licenses may even be canceled. If the bidder truly did not engage in bid-rigging, does that mean they have no chance to appeal? Our laws and regulations on bidding also stipulate that bidders can seek administrative relief through complaints after the evaluation process is completed, with the administrative oversight authorities making a decision in this regard. This also provides an opportunity to correct any misjudgments by the judges.

Currently, the construction of chemical plants is mainly carried out through EPC turnkey contracts. There are only about a dozen engineering companies capable of undertaking such contracts, and their project management and technical capabilities are more or less similar; ultimately, it is the bid price that determines the winner. How can there be \"bidding fraud\"? One can take a look at the bidding results for a large coal chemical project that recently started construction. China Coal Yulin’s 2.2 million tons per year methanol project and 900,000 tons per year polyolefin project have seen the commissioning of their main units https://bbs.hcbbs.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=5666387