上海专业翻译机构公司报价
英文翻译价格
英文翻译价格
根据以英文作为的人数计算;英文是最多国家使用的;英语也是世界上最广泛的;也是;最多和的之一..但仅拥有世界第二位的使用者;少于..上两个世纪和在、经济、军事、政治和科学上的领先地位使得英语成为一种国际语言..如今;许多国际场合都使用英语做为沟通媒介..英语也是与联系最密切的语言;大多数都与英语有联系;而且随着的使用;使英文的使用更普及..英语是的之一..
为了方便大家了解英文翻译价格;小编在目前汇集最多翻译团队的高校译云上面获得了不同翻译精英团队所展示的价格..
暨南大学翻译中心：中英---普稿---150---千字英中---普稿
---250---千字
武汉理工大学-外国语学院MTI翻译中心
：中英互译中英 130-150 英中 100-130
华中科技大学-翻译研究中心
：中英互译中英 120-150 英中 100-120
湖南科技大学MTI中心：中英---普稿---150---千字
上海师大外国语学院翻译中心：
中英---普稿---200元---千字英语普通文本译成汉语
---120元---千字
西南大学翻译中心：中英---普稿----300---千字英中---普稿
---200---千字
上海理工大学MTI翻译中心：中英---普稿---100---千字
南京财经大学外国语学院翻译研究中心：中英---普稿---100---千字一般英文翻译价格是是在100—300元每千字;根据译员质量、翻译内容、需要的时间等都会有一定的波动;所以以上价格供大家参考;具体的可以准备好稿件了去问;这样会更加准确一些..。
全国翻译价格
全国翻译价格关于全国各地区翻译价格我们根据客户的不同需求和具体情况，提供多种等级和特色的翻译服务，供客户选择：（注：以下报价均为参考价格，精确报价将根据稿件内容的难度、技术处理的复杂程度和时限要求的缓急而定。
品质控制坚持高端定位是外语通翻译的核心要素，追求高品质翻译需要译员具备深厚的语言功底和专业背景知识，更需要严格的质量控制体系来管理这一过程：外语通六阶梯质量控制体系第一阶梯：译文评估承接分析稿件性质、用途要求、商务背景、专业术语、数量和交稿时间等，确定是否有100%的把握承接，否则坚决放弃，以免因质量或交稿时间耽误客户和影响品牌形象。
第二阶梯：专业译员翻译专业背景的译员只专注于一个行业领域的精准翻译，项目经理根据译文评估，从外语通全球译员库中分析挑选多名此行业的专业译员成立项目组，统一专业术语和标准，协同翻译。
第三阶梯：翻译质量监控项目经理监控翻译进展，每日集中疑难词汇，请签约专家释疑。
每日抽查译文质量，及时解决译文质量问题。
第四阶梯：译文校对排版汇总所有译文，查错补漏，进一步统一术语，按原文进行排版，形成完整初稿。
第五阶梯：专家译审修改专家译审对翻译初稿进行翻译准确性审核，确保译稿忠于原文，专业词汇纯正地道。
六阶梯：外籍母语润色第在华外籍翻译（外译中稿件由中文功底深厚的编辑）对译稿的语法、词汇进行修正和润色，确保译稿纯正、地道，达到母语品质。
外语通翻译严格执行《ISO译文质量体系》，《翻译质量国家标准GB/T 19682-2005》：译文质量标准Ⅲ类通用笔译Ⅱ类专业笔译Ⅰ类高级笔译译文用途内容概要、参考资料一般文件和材料正式文件、法律文书、出版物错漏译率小于5‰小于2‰0‰译员经验3年以上5年以上8年以上译员学历硕士以上硕士以上硕士以上行业背景常识业内资深海外背景无/短期中期长期译文校对有有有专家译审无有有母语润色无无有译文排版简单排版详细排版出版级别。
翻译服务报价单(参考)
翻译服务报价单(参考)1. 简介该报价单旨在为客户提供参考，并根据具体项目需求进行调整。
作为翻译服务提供商，我们致力于提供高质量、准确和快速的翻译服务。
以下是我们的报价细则。
2. 价格我们根据以下几个因素确定翻译服务的价格：- 文档长度：根据文档的字数或页数来计算费用。
具体价格请参见以下表格。
- 翻译难度：根据文档的专业性、技术性和复杂程度来调整价格。
具体价格调整，请与我们的客户服务团队联系。
- 紧急程度：对于需要紧急翻译的项目，我们将额外收取紧急服务费。
具体费用与紧急程度相关，请与我们的客户服务团队咨询。
3. 付款条款- 我们接受多种付款方式，包括银行转账和支付宝等线上支付方式。
- 在开始翻译之前，我们需要收到全额或预付定金的付款。
- 对于长期合作的客户，我们可以提供月结付款选项，具体条款请与我们的客户服务团队协商。
4. 交付时间- 我们将尽最大努力在约定的时间内交付翻译好的文件。
- 对于大型项目或较为复杂的文件，我们将根据具体情况与客户商议交付时间。
- 对于紧急项目，我们可以提供加急服务，但需额外收取紧急服务费。
5. 取消和退款- 如需取消已经下单的翻译服务，请在开始翻译前及时通知我们。
如果已经开始翻译，则无法取消订单。
- 对于已经付款的订单，如因客户原因取消或变更需求，我们将根据已完成的翻译字数或页数进行退款调整。
6. 保密协议我们将严格遵守客户的保密要求和协议。
客户的文件和信息将在完成翻译后进行安全处理，确保保密性。
7. 联系我们如果您对我们的报价单有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，请随时与我们的客户服务团队联系。
8. 免责声明该报价单仅为参考，具体报价将根据项目需求和其他因素进行调整。
我们保留根据实际情况进行调整的权利，并保持价格透明和公正。
陪同翻译价格
陪同翻译价格
陪同翻译价格通常根据服务的时长和复杂程度而定。
以下是一般陪同翻译价格的参考范围：
1. 每小时收费：通常每小时收费在50-100美元之间。
这取决于翻译者的资历和经验，以及服务的地点和要求。
2. 全天费用：全天的价格可能在300-800美元之间，这取决于翻译的专业水平和工作时长。
3. 项目费用：有些翻译服务提供商可能会根据整个项目的大小和复杂程度来制定价格。
这种定价方式可能在500-3000美元之间。
需要注意的是，具体的价格可能会因为地域、语言对和其他因素而有所不同。
此外，一些翻译服务提供商可能还会收取额外的费用，例如交通费、住宿费等。
最好在与翻译服务提供商沟通之前明确价格和服务细节，以避免后续的误解或争议。
翻译公司收费标准
100起
130
150
200
300
录取通知书
150起
180
200
250
350
护照
100起
130
150
200
300
出生证明
150起
180
200
250
350
死亡证明
150起
180
200
250
350
未获刑证明
150
130
150
200
300
婚姻证明
100起
130
150
200
300
职业证明
100起
130
二．口译收费标准
形式
收费
语种
陪同翻译（旅游、
解说、展会等）
单位：天
交互传译（会谈、谈判、技术交流等）
单位：天
同声传译（论坛、讲座、国际会议等，需配两人）
单位：天
英语
1500-2000
2800-3500
8000-10000
日语
2000-2500
3500-5000
8500-1200
韩语
2000-2500
文章来源：上海翻译公司
2500-3000
4000-5500
9000-12500
土耳其语
3500-4000
5000-6500
10000-13500
印地语
3500-4000
5000-6500
10000-13500
荷兰语
6000-7000
12000-15000源自17000-22000希伯来语
6000-7000
12000-15000
翻译机构收费标准
翻译机构收费标准在当今全球化的时代，翻译服务变得越来越重要。
无论是企业开展国际业务，还是个人需要跨国交流，翻译机构都扮演着至关重要的角色。
然而，很多人对于翻译机构的收费标准存在疑惑，不知道如何评估翻译服务的价格合理性。
本文将就翻译机构的收费标准进行详细介绍，帮助大家更好地了解翻译服务的定价规则。
首先，翻译机构的收费标准通常是按照翻译的语种和文字数量来确定的。
不同语种的翻译难度和市场需求不同，因此价格也会有所差异。
一般来说，常见的语种如英语、法语、德语等价格会相对较低，而一些稀缺语种或者特殊领域的翻译价格则会相对较高。
此外，文字数量也是影响翻译收费的重要因素。
翻译机构通常会以每千字为单位来计费，文字数量越多，价格也会相应增加。
其次，翻译机构的收费标准还会受到翻译质量和交付时间的影响。
高质量的翻译通常会需要更多的时间和精力来完成，因此价格也会相对较高。
而如果客户有较为紧急的交付时间要求，翻译机构可能会根据情况收取加急费用。
因此，在选择翻译机构时，客户需要根据自身的需求来评估翻译质量和交付时间，以及相应的费用。
此外，翻译机构的收费标准还会受到市场供求关系和行业竞争的影响。
在翻译市场需求较大的时候，翻译机构可能会适当提高价格以获取更高的利润。
而在市场竞争激烈的时候，翻译机构可能会通过降低价格来吸引客户。
因此，客户在选择翻译机构时，需要对市场行情有一定的了解，以便更好地评估价格的合理性。
总的来说，翻译机构的收费标准是一个相对复杂的问题，受到多种因素的影响。
客户在选择翻译机构时，需要全面考虑翻译的语种和文字数量、翻译质量和交付时间、市场供求关系和行业竞争等因素，以便做出合理的选择。
同时，客户也可以通过多方比较，选择性价比更高的翻译机构，以满足自身的翻译需求。
综上所述，翻译机构的收费标准是一个相对复杂的问题，需要客户在选择翻译机构时进行全面考虑。
希望本文能够帮助大家更好地了解翻译服务的定价规则，以便更好地选择合适的翻译机构。
上海必克英语收费标准
上海必克英语收费标准上海必克英语作为上海地区知名的英语培训机构，一直以来致力于为学员提供优质的英语学习服务。
为了让学员更清晰地了解我们的收费标准，我们特别整理了以下收费标准，希望能够帮助到大家。
一、课程费用。
1. 零基础课程。
针对英语零基础学员，我们提供专业的零基础课程，包括听说读写全方位的培训。
课程费用为每学期2000元，学期为3个月。
2. 初级课程。
初级课程主要针对英语基础较好的学员，包括基础语法、词汇扩充、口语练习等内容。
课程费用为每学期2500元，学期为3个月。
3. 中级课程。
中级课程主要针对英语基础较扎实的学员，包括阅读理解、写作能力、听力训练等内容。
课程费用为每学期2800元，学期为3个月。
4. 高级课程。
高级课程主要针对英语基础较好的学员，包括高级语法、听力训练、口语表达等内容。
课程费用为每学期3000元，学期为3个月。
二、教材费用。
除了课程费用外，学员还需要支付相应的教材费用。
教材费用根据实际使用的教材种类和数量而定，具体费用可向课程顾问咨询。
三、其他费用。
1. 注册费。
学员在报名时需要支付一定的注册费用，用于办理学员档案和相关手续。
注册费为200元/人。
2. 资料费。
学员在学习过程中可能需要购买一些学习资料或参加一些外部活动，这部分费用属于个人自愿支出，学校不强制要求。
四、优惠政策。
为了回馈广大学员的支持，上海必克英语还推出了一些优惠政策，具体包括：1. 新生优惠，新生报名可享受8折优惠；2. 团报优惠，多人组团报名可享受9折优惠；3. 二次报名优惠，曾经学员再次报名可享受9.5折优惠。
以上就是上海必克英语的收费标准，我们希望通过透明、公开的收费标准，让学员更加信任我们的服务，也让家长更加放心学员的学习。
如果您对收费标准有任何疑问或需要进一步了解，欢迎随时联系我们的客服人员，我们将竭诚为您解答。
感谢您对上海必克英语的关注与支持！。
翻译服务收费标准
翻译服务收费标准一、笔译人民币元/千字中文( 加急加收30% —70% ，专业加收50% ) 语种中译外外译中外译外英语170 140 面议日语170 140韩语190 160德语220 180俄语220 180法语220 180意大利语280 250西班牙语280 250葡萄牙语290 260阿拉伯语350 320越南语430 400荷兰语510 460波兰语380-480 360-40塞尔维亚语370-470 420-530泰国语260-380 280-520老挝语320-420 370-480印度语320-420 370-480希腊语370-470 420-530哈萨克语280-380 300-410瑞典语300-400 340-450丹麦语320-420 370-470印度尼西亚语330-450 350-460蒙古语300-400 350-4601、字数计算：以中文版稿件在Windows word文档显示的字符数（不计空格）为基准。
也即包含了标点符号，因其为理解语义的必需。
2、图表计算：图表按每个A4页面，按页酌情计收排版费用。
3、外文互译：按照中文换算，即每个拉丁单词乘以二等于相应的中文字数。
4、日翻译量：正常翻译量3000-5000字/日/人，超过正常翻译量按专业难易受20%加急费．5、付款方式：按预算总价的20%收取定金，按译后准确字数计总价并交稿付款。
6、注意事项：出差在原价格上增加20%，客户负责翻译的交通、食宿和安全费用。
二、口译价格：(1) 交传报价（元/人/天，加小时按100-150元/小时加收费用）类型英语德、日、法、俄、韩小语种一般活动700 800 1500商务活动500-1200 500-1500 800-3000中小型会议1200-3000 1500-3000 2500-3000大型会议1200-4000 2500-6000 4000-9000(2) 同传报价（元/人/天）类别中-英互译日、韩、德、俄、法、韩-中互译小语种-中互译商务会议5000-8000 6000-10000 8000-10000中小型会议5500-8000 7000-12000 8000-12000大型国际会议6000-9000 8000-12000 12000-16000。
专业笔译千元千字
专业笔译千元千字篇一：笔译价格【笔译】单位：元/千字【口译】单位：元/天标准笔译报价(单位：人民币/元)英语译文字数外译中每千字（word字符数（不计空格））中译外外译中日、韩、法、德、俄中译外小语种其它外译中中译外外译外120-160 160-200 180-260 200-280 400-500 500-600 450-550交替传译报价(单位：人民币/元)类型一般商务展览、旅游陪同技术交流商务谈判大型国际会议备注：1、口语翻译工作时间为8小时/天/人（不包括同传）。
2、如果需要翻译加班，加班每超过1小时，按200-300小时/人加收费用。
3、外埠出差客户负责翻译人员的交通，食宿费用。
4、特殊专业及小语种价格面议。
英语日、韩、法、德小语种其它语种600-1200元/人/天 800-1500元/人/天 1000-1600元/人/天1000元/人/小时800-1600元/人/天 2500-4000元/人/天1000-2000元/人/天 3000-5000元/人/天1200-2200元/人/天 4000-6000元/人/天同声传译报价同声传译（每个语种、每场同传需要安排2-3名同传译员）同传语种计费方式同传价格备注：1、同传翻译工作时间为6小时/天/人。
2、同传、交传及大、中、小型会议半天，均按一天费用的 60%收取费用。
3、加班每超过1小时，按1000元--1600元/小时/人加收费用。
4、外埠出差在原价格上增加20％，客户负责翻译的交通、食宿和安全等费用。
5、提供最新款BOSCH同传设备租赁并负责技术支持。
（设备租赁价格请来电索取）中、英互译每小时/每人 1000-1200每天/每人 6000-8000中、俄法德意日互译每小时/每人 1200-1400 每天/每人 7000-9000中、其它小语种互译每小时/每人 1400-1600 每天/每人 8000-10000DVD/VCD视频和音频听力翻译报价中←→英中←→日法德俄中←→小语种外←→外录象带时长（分钟） 100以内 100-300 300以上中→英英→中中→外外→中中→外外→中外←→外180-240 160-230 140-220150-200 130-180 120-160240-300 220-290180-240 160-240300-400 290-440200-290 200-290320-580 300-540备注：本报价除了用时间分钟计费外，还可用字数计费，价格面议。
翻译机构收费标准
翻译机构收费标准翻译作为一项重要的语言服务，对于企业和个人来说都具有非常重要的意义。
在选择翻译机构时，了解其收费标准是非常重要的。
本文将介绍翻译机构的收费标准，帮助您更好地了解翻译服务的定价方式。
首先，翻译机构的收费标准通常是按照翻译的语言种类和文字数量来计费的。
不同语言之间的翻译难度和工作量是不同的，因此翻译机构会根据翻译的语言种类来进行收费。
一般来说，常见的语言（如英语、法语、德语等）的翻译费用会相对较低，而一些少见的语言（如阿拉伯语、日语、韩语等）的翻译费用会较高一些。
此外，文字数量也是影响翻译费用的重要因素，翻译机构通常会按照每千字或每千字对等的方式来计费。
其次，翻译机构的收费标准还与翻译的内容和领域有关。
一般来说，专业领域的翻译费用会相对较高，因为这需要翻译人员具有专业的知识和技能。
比如，医学、法律、金融等领域的翻译费用会比一般的商务文件翻译费用高一些。
此外，一些特殊的文件类型（如合同、技术说明书、专利文件等）也会影响翻译费用的定价。
另外，翻译机构的收费标准还可能会受到一些其他因素的影响，比如翻译的紧急程度、格式要求、排版要求等。
如果客户需要在较短的时间内完成翻译，通常会需要支付一定的加急费用。
此外，如果客户需要翻译的文件有特殊的格式要求或者需要进行排版工作，也会对翻译费用产生影响。
总的来说，翻译机构的收费标准是根据多种因素来确定的，客户在选择翻译机构时需要考虑清楚自己的需求，并与翻译机构进行充分的沟通，以便确定最合适的收费方式。
同时，翻译机构也应该根据客户的需求提供合理的收费标准，确保双方能够达成满意的合作。
综上所述，翻译机构的收费标准是一个综合考量多种因素的过程，客户在选择翻译机构时需要充分了解各项收费标准，并根据自身需求进行选择。
希望本文能对您有所帮助，谢谢阅读！。
专业翻译公司收费标准
专业翻译公司收费标准在当今全球化的时代，跨国交流与合作日益频繁，翻译服务的需求也随之增加。
而对于企业或个人来说，选择一家专业的翻译公司是非常重要的，而了解翻译公司的收费标准也是必不可少的。
本文将为您详细介绍专业翻译公司的收费标准，帮助您更好地选择合适的翻译服务。
首先，专业翻译公司的收费标准通常是按照翻译的语种和文字数量来计费的。
不同语种的翻译费用会有所差异，一般来说，常见的语种如英语、法语、德语等相对常见的语种费用会相对较低，而一些少见的语种如北欧语系、东欧语系等费用则会相对较高。
此外，文字数量也是影响翻译费用的重要因素，通常来说，翻译公司会按照每千字或每千字节来计费，文字数量越多，费用也会相应增加。
其次，翻译公司的收费标准还会受到翻译内容的专业性和难度的影响。
一般来说，一般性的商务文件、简单的日常对话等翻译费用会相对较低，而一些专业性较强、技术性较高的文件如法律文件、医学论文等翻译费用则会相对较高。
因为这些专业领域的翻译需要具备相应的专业知识和背景，翻译公司需要投入更多的人力和时间来完成翻译工作。
此外，翻译公司的收费标准还会受到交付时间的影响。
通常来说，如果客户需要加急翻译服务，翻译公司会加收相应的加急费用。
因为加急翻译需要翻译公司调动更多的人力资源和时间来满足客户的需求，所以费用也会相应增加。
最后，除了基本的翻译费用之外，翻译公司还可能会收取一些额外的费用，如排版费、审校费、翻译证书费等。
这些额外费用通常是根据客户的具体需求而定，如果客户需要翻译公司提供这些额外的服务，就需要额外支付相应的费用。
综上所述，专业翻译公司的收费标准是根据翻译的语种和文字数量、翻译内容的专业性和难度、交付时间以及额外的服务费用来确定的。
在选择翻译公司时，客户需要根据自己的实际需求来选择合适的翻译服务，并了解清楚翻译公司的收费标准，以便更好地控制翻译成本，同时确保翻译质量和交付时间的要求得到满足。
翻译服务收费标准
翻译服务收费标准一、笔译人民币元/千字中文( 加急加收30% —70% ，专业加收50% ) 语种中译外外译中外译外英语170 140 面议日语170 140韩语190 160德语220 180俄语220 180法语220 180意大利语280 250西班牙语280 250葡萄牙语290 260阿拉伯语350 320越南语430 400荷兰语510 460波兰语380-480 360-40塞尔维亚语370-470 420-530泰国语260-380 280-520老挝语320-420 370-480印度语320-420 370-480希腊语370-470 420-530哈萨克语280-380 300-410瑞典语300-400 340-450丹麦语320-420 370-470印度尼西亚语330-450 350-460蒙古语300-400 350-4601、字数计算：以中文版稿件在Windows word文档显示的字符数（不计空格）为基准。
也即包含了标点符号，因其为理解语义的必需。
2、图表计算：图表按每个A4页面，按页酌情计收排版费用。
3、外文互译：按照中文换算，即每个拉丁单词乘以二等于相应的中文字数。
4、日翻译量：正常翻译量3000-5000字/日/人，超过正常翻译量按专业难易受20%加急费．5、付款方式：按预算总价的20%收取定金，按译后准确字数计总价并交稿付款。
6、注意事项：出差在原价格上增加20%，客户负责翻译的交通、食宿和安全费用。
二、口译价格：(1) 交传报价（元/人/天，加小时按100-150元/小时加收费用）类型英语德、日、法、俄、韩小语种一般活动700 800 1500商务活动500-1200 500-1500 800-3000中小型会议1200-3000 1500-3000 2500-3000大型会议1200-4000 2500-6000 4000-9000(2) 同传报价（元/人/天）类别中-英互译日、韩、德、俄、法、韩-中互译小语种-中互译商务会议5000-8000 6000-10000 8000-10000中小型会议5500-8000 7000-12000 8000-12000大型国际会议6000-9000 8000-12000 12000-16000。
翻译报价上海翻译公司
精诚翻译团队震撼全行业最低价-翻译报价50元千字起（市场价格100以上，至少比传统翻译公司价格低40%或更多，互联网+ 时代，去中介运作精诚翻译五折优惠中六年经验！先翻译后付费学生客户送50元优惠券，可以搜索精诚翻译找到我们艾司西酞普兰和去甲替林治疗方案干预措施无禁忌的合资格参与者接受12周的艾司西酞普兰和去甲替林治疗方案，使用一个独立随机数发生器来进行治疗安排。
艾司西酞普兰是一种选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂，对于去甲肾上腺素转运没有影响（26）。
开始剂量为10毫克/天，滴定至17毫克/天的平均剂量（范围5–30毫克/天）。
去甲替林是一种三环类抗抑郁药，对于去甲肾上腺素转运，亲和力比5-羟色胺转运体强100倍。
因此，被主要被作为去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂（27）。
对于去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂，我们优先选择去甲替林，这是由于其卓越的功效记录（28，29）。
去甲替林开始剂量是50毫克/天，后面滴定至106毫克/天的平均剂量（范围50–200毫克/天）。
对于CRP数据的参与者，115名接受艾司西酞普兰治疗，126人接受去甲替林治疗。
这些参与者中，179人（74.3 %）完成至少8周的药物治疗。
艾司西酞普兰组(N=93, 80.9%)完成率比去甲替林组(N=86, 68.3%)要高，但是两组治疗在减轻抑郁症状方面有相当的效果（24）。
结果测量主要结果测量指标是蒙哥马利-艾森贝格Å抑郁评定量表（MADRS）的总分（30），每周由受过训练且信誉良好的精神病学家和心理学家进行测量(31, 32)。
次要结果测量指标包括17项汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表（HAM-D）（33）、Beck抑郁问卷（BDI）（34）以及因素分析获得的症状数据：观察心情（情绪、精神运动迟缓）、认知症状（悲观、兴趣丧失、快感缺乏、活动减少）和和植物神经系统症状（失眠和食欲不振）（24，31，32）。
统计分析跟之前的GENDEP分析抑郁，我们使用混合效应模型在STATA环境中进行重复测量(35)。
翻译公司收费标准
翻译公司收费标准我们以这六大语种为例讲讲翻译公司的收费标准。
第一稀缺性。
六种语言全球使用数量：英语>汉语>法语>西班牙语>俄语>阿拉伯语收费标准也遵循这个原则，使用人数较少的语言也就意味着相关译员数量也更少，物以稀为贵译员收费也较高，其他小语种则收费更高。
给大家一个参考价格中译英180元/千字大家可以以此类推。
第二专业性。
翻译行业涉及的领域非常广泛，在今天这个全球化程度越来越高的时代，中国作为全球唯一拥有联合国产业分类中全部工业门类的国家，任何存在的领域都有可能有翻译需求，包括：食品、网络、文学、医学、安全、文学、化学、物理等等，每一个领域对于专业知识的要求都不尽相同，译员在不同的行业领域收费也不尽相同，一般视难度定价千字200元以上。
第三时效性。
客户有翻译需求时，一般都有一定的时间限制，正常译员的翻译量一天在3000-5000字左右，大家在翻译时可根据自己文件数量，大致估算出译员单人翻译的工作时间，如果想要完成十万字的翻译，单人需要20个工作日，如果客户要求一个星期之内翻译完成，翻译公司会根据客户需求，分派稿件给多位译员，翻译公司付出的人员成本增加，分摊到翻译费用上也会略有增加，行业内加急费一般千字额外收取30-50元。
说完了笔译，我们说口译。
口译顾名思义从一种语言到另一种语言的口头翻译。
市面上根据口译类型又细分为：陪同翻译、交替传译、同声传译。
翻译难度依次递增。
陪同翻译指在商务陪同、旅游陪同等活动中提供口译工作的专业。
在业务能力上一般要求翻译准确流利，具有较强的服务意识和责任心，需要积累大量的商务和旅游知识，是输出型口语翻译服务，收费标准英语1500/2000元之间。
交替传译指当讲者发言结束或者停下来等候传译的时候，口译员用清楚自然的目的语，准确、完整地重新表达源语发言的全部信息内容。
应用的场合一般规模较小如：访问考察、小范围磋商、记者采访、司法和准司法程序、宴会致词、新闻发布会以及时间短的小型研讨会等。
翻译报价一般标准
四、电影、电视剧本，录音带、VCD 等音频、视频翻译价格 语 种 英译中 中译英 其他语种 备注 价 格 100-200 元/分钟 150-300 元/分钟 200-300 元/分钟 提供非编、配音及各种后期处理。
翻译报价一般标准
一、笔译价格 （单位：人民币/千字） 英 语 译文字数 英译中 1 万字内 1 万-4 万字 5 万-9 万字 证件/公证类 10 万字以上 300 280 260 50 元/页 中译英 380 360 340 60 元/页 外译中 350 320 300 60 元/页 中译外 450 430 400 70 元/页 外译中 面议 面议 面议 面议 中译外 面议 面议 面议 面议 日/俄/韩/法/德 食宿和安全等费用。 2、同声传译 4—8 小时为 1 个工作日，不足 4 小时按半个工作日计算；超过 4 个 备注 小时不足 8 个小时的按 1 个工作日计算，当日工作每超出 1 小时加收 25%； 3、特殊专业及稀有语种价格另议。
三、网站翻译价格（由三部分组成，即页面翻译制作费用和文本、图形翻译费用） 翻译制作费用 文本部分 图形部分 以网页页面计，即一个 HTML、ASP、PHP 等类似文档，平均 300 元人民币/页面 文本部分与常规翻译收费相同，详细请查看翻译报价。 如客户无特殊要求则不收费，如有其它要求费用另议。
价 格 优 惠
• •
备注
专业性较强的稿件，加收 20%—100% 费用。 免费市内取送、免费挂号邮递。免费译稿打印。提供不同格式的电子文档。 特殊稿件以及交稿日期紧急的加急件价格另议 (加收 20%—100% 费用)。
• •
字数计算以中文 WORD 计符号但不计空格所显示的字数为标准(图形另算)。
二、口译价格（单位：人民币/人/日） 类 型 商务陪同 谈判/中小会议交传/耳 3500 语 同传/大型会议交传 7000 8000 10000 4000 5000 英语 15 0 日/俄/韩/法/德 2000 其他语种 2500
翻译公司收费标准
翻译公司收费标准翻译公司的收费标准是客户选择翻译服务时最为关注的一个问题。
不同的翻译公司可能会有不同的收费标准，因此客户在选择翻译公司时需要对其收费标准有所了解，以便选择最适合自己需求的翻译服务。
本文将就翻译公司收费标准进行详细介绍，希望能够帮助客户更好地了解翻译公司的收费情况。
首先，翻译公司的收费标准通常是按照翻译的文字数量来计费的。
一般情况下，翻译公司会以每千字为单位来计费，不同语种的翻译价格可能会有所不同。
一般来说，翻译公司对于一些常见的语种，比如英语、法语、德语等，收费会相对较低，而对于一些较为罕见的语种，比如北欧语系、东南亚语系等，收费则可能会相对较高。
因此，客户在选择翻译公司时需要根据自己的需求来选择适合的语种和价格。
其次，翻译公司的收费标准也会受到翻译内容的影响。
一般来说，对于一些专业性较强的翻译内容，比如法律文件、医学论文、技术手册等，翻译公司的收费会相对较高。
因为这些领域的翻译需要具备较高的专业知识和翻译技巧，因此翻译公司会根据翻译内容的难易程度来确定收费标准。
而对于一些普通的商务文件、宣传材料等，翻译公司的收费则会相对较低。
另外，翻译公司的收费标准还会受到交付时间的影响。
一般来说，如果客户对翻译文件的交付时间要求较为紧急，翻译公司可能会对此收取加急费用。
因为加急翻译需要翻译人员加班加点来完成，因此翻译公司会根据客户的要求来确定加急翻译的收费标准。
客户在选择翻译公司时需要根据自己的时间要求来选择适合的翻译服务，以避免因加急翻译而增加不必要的费用。
综上所述，翻译公司的收费标准是客户选择翻译服务时需要重点关注的一个问题。
客户在选择翻译公司时需要根据翻译的文字数量、翻译内容的难易程度以及交付时间的要求来选择适合自己需求的翻译服务。
同时，客户也可以通过比较不同翻译公司的收费标准来选择性价比最高的翻译服务，以确保自己能够获得满意的翻译结果。
希望本文能够帮助客户更好地了解翻译公司的收费情况，从而更好地选择适合自己的翻译服务。
上海翻译公司报价精诚翻译
精诚翻译五折优惠中翻译报价50到70元千字（市场价100左右），全网最低，找最便宜，就百度搜索精诚翻译或者50元翻译找到我们免费试译，免费修改满意付款Conclusions and Overall RecommendationsDoD can increase the integration of its supply chain by addressing shortfalls in policy, enabling mechanisms, and workforce knowledge. Policy creates the foundation upon which to build an integrated supply chain design and the structure within which to work, with enabling mechanisms and workforce knowledge holding it together in the way intended. Fundamental toachieving supply chain integration and pursuing actions consistent with total supply chain optimization as opposed to process or functional optimization is always thinking about doing so, whether in management of the supply chain and its personnel, policy development, process design, and everyday decisionmaking. This starts with ensuring workforce members understand how they affect the rest of the supply chain through a clear DoD supply chain framework—such as the one laid out in this report, receive feedback on their effects on other processesand their effects on the total supply chain, and have the tools to make integrated supplychain decisions. This supply chain framework should be incorporated into DoD supply chain materiel management policy.DoD has several opportunities to increase supply chain integration with the benefits of improved performance and efficiency. To reduce costs, the most important is increased attention to supplier lead times and order quantities, which can be through increased integrationwith suppliers. In conjunction, the role of procurement personnel in driving inventory mustbe recognized to a greater degree. The Office of the Secretary of Defense should launch a new initiative to determine how purchasing and supply management practices could be improvedto achieve lead time and order quantity reductions. Related to this is ensuring a tight integration among demand, supply, and repair planning for reparable items to ensure the total supplyof unserviceable items in the ―closed loop‖ reparable system is kept to the minimum necessaryto support readiness. In 2012, ASD(L&MR) launched two studies to take on these issues with one focusing on improving consumable supply chain management in DLA and one focusingon reparable item management across the services.Another opportunity is an increased focus on stock positioning, to include improved incorporation of stock positioning in policy and the broad adoption of stock positioningxviii Integrating the Department of Defense Supply Chainmetrics. Improved stock positioning is at the heart of a number of important DoD supplychain initiatives such as Strategic Network Optimization, Distribution Process Owner Strategic Opportunities supply alignment, and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005-based transition to DLA ownership and management of retail stock in support of maintenance depots. It also has an important interplay and potential for leverage with a scheduled truck network improvement effort based upon the scheduled truck chapter in this report. Yet despite the frequency with which stock positioning is the crux of improvement initiatives, emphasis remains limited as reflected in metrics and the lack of goals for stock positioning.10Related to all of these is ensuring that organizations have the breadth of budgets that givethem the degrees of freedom to pursue the course of action that will optimize the supply chain and are correspondingly responsible for budgets that they drive the consumption of. A reviewof supply chain organizational budget categories and the effects that each organization hason costs should be conducted to determine where there is misalignment, with changes made accordingly. Aligning budget authority and organizational effects should also be part of the design process when standing up new organizations or changing organizational designs. Finally, progress toward supply chain integration could accelerate with improved end-toend information sharing, to include outside of DoD to the supply base. This includes ensuringeach organization knows what information it produces—and more importantly, could produce that it is not—that would be valuable to its upstream and downstream partners. It alsoincludes ensuring that organizations develop capabilities to utilize this information to the full potential.Overall Contract SpendingTop Line DoD Contract Spending, 1990–2011Figure 2-1 presents total DoD spending from 1990 to 2011 as well as total dollars spent on defense contracts. Contract spending is tracked in FY 2011 dollar amounts by the lower portions of the bars,corresponding with the left-hand y-axis, and as a percentage of total DoD outlays by the line at the top ofthe graph, corresponding with the right-hand y-axis. The upper portions of the bars represent noncontractDoD spending in FY 2011 dollar amounts, including funding for personnel, organic construction, andmaintenance, etc.Between 2001 and 2011, dollars obligated to contract awards by DoD more than doubled, and contract spending outpaced growth in other DoD outlays.1 This growth was predominantly in productsand services, which experienced a 21-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.4 percent and 9.4percent, respectively, compared to the R&D category’s 5.4 percent annual growth. Contract spendingrelative to DoD outlays reversed sharply beginning in 2008, but largely as a result of other DoD outlaysincreasing rapidly rather than of the comparatively small but sustained decline in contract spending. Interms of average annual growth, the increase in DoD contract spending since 1990 far outpaced that ofother DoD outlays. Between 1990 and 2011, other outlays grew by only 0.2 percent per year, whilecontract spending grew by 4.0 percent. This difference was also striking during the post-9/11 period. Overthe last 11 years, contract spending grew by 7.4 percent annually, while other outlays increased at 4.4percent per year.In the years 2008 to 2011 there was a profound shift in DoD contract spending. While absoluteobligations for defense services contracts declined by $25 billion and dropped from 64 percent of totalDoD acquisition outlays to 55 percent, noncontract defense spending increased by $71 billion and increased from 36 percent of DoD acquisition outlays to 45 percent. Therefore, as DoD contracts spending decreased at an annual average of 2.1 percent in total value, its noncontract acquisitions increased by an 11.1 percent CAGR for the same period.Given that there was no significant change in overall DoD contract spending between 2010 and 2011, it is possible that an equilibrium in the ratio between DoD contracts spending and other spendinghas been reached. This kind of steady relationship for DoD spending, split between contracts and otheraccounts, has not been seen since the years 1995 to 2001, although the current level of spending andpercentage of contract spending was much higher in 2010 to 2011 than in those years. However, anticipated reductions in defense spending beginning in 2012 will likely affect all DoD outlays in thecoming years.DoD Contract Obligations by Category in Percentage Terms, 1990–2011Assembled from the previous three figures, the lines in Figure 2-5 track the changes in the composition ofDoD contract obligations among products, services, and R&D contract dollars. Each line tracks thepercentage of total DoD contract dollars awarded in each category in the period 1990 to 2011. Comparing the relative levels of defense obligations in each of the three categories, clear shifts in priorities are evident following the end of the Cold War and following U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.These shifts are most pronounced in contract obligations for products and services. Reductions in bothmilitary and civilian personnel after the Cold War led to an increase in outsourcing to continue providingmany services, while obligations for products decreased with the smaller force structure. The relativeshares of product and services obligations converged in 1998 and 1999, with the former decreasing andthe latter increasing. After this point, products edged up over services, and the gap widened with theinitiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The relative shares of services and products appeared tobegin converging again after 2008, as absolute levels of obligations declined sharply for products whileobligations for services remained relatively stable. However, FY 2011, the most recent fiscal year, saw asharp increase in product obligations (mostly by the Navy) and a small decrease in services obligationsthat widened this gap.The data for recent years show the degree to which operations in Afghanistan and Iraq independently influenced DoD obligations. While contract dollars for products decreased significantlyduring U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2009 and 2010, the sudden increase in 2011 may be a one-timeadjustment or may mark the end of the resulting ―peace dividend.‖ Obligations for services, however,declined more slowly than that on products after 2009 and continued to decrease in 2011. A similar trendwas seen post–Cold War/post–Gulf War, as products obligations decreased at an average of 1.3 percentannually while services obligations increased by 3.3 percent from 1990 to 2000. One explanation mightbe that in the wake of major operations, obligations for products decreases more abruptly while obligations for services declines more slowly. This is due, perhaps, to the longer-term nature of demandfor services contracts, as opposed to contracts for products (e.g., fuel, munitions), which are more easilyterminated (or not renewed) at the end of a conflict, when demand also ends or is reduced.DoD Contract Obligations by Component, 1990–2011In Figure 3-1, the total DoD contract obligations for each year, presented in the aggregate in Figure 2-1,are broken down by each military department’s share of the total. The Army, Navy, and Air Force areindividually presented, and the remaining DoD components are combined into the category of Other DoDand their obligations are aggregated.In the past decade, trends in contract obligations by the key DoD components are visibly tied to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until 2002, each of these components’ contract obligations wasrelatively flat. This changed rapidly after 9/11, with the greatest increases occurring in the Army: 139percent total growth from 2002 to 2010 at an annual rate of 7 percent. Growth in the Other DoD category(111 percent total increase from 2002 to 2010) was driven primarily by the Defense Logistics Agency(DLA) and, to a lesser extent, by the Tricare Management Agency (TMA). Obligations by the Navy grewsomewhat more slowly, rising 54 percent from 2002 to 2010, followed by the Air Force at 14percentgrowth during this period.From 2008 to 2011, due to the drawdown in Iraq and increased fiscal austerity measures, the relative component shares of DoD contract obligations underwent a major shift. This affected the Armymost of all, and its overall contract obligations decreased at an average of 7.7 percent per year between2008 and 2011. Air Force obligations decreased only slightly at 0.5 percent per year on average, whileNavy contract obligations increased by 1.5 percent annually. The category of Other DoD grew in value bya yearly average of 2.5 percent during the past three years, largely driven by obligations by the U.S.Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), TMA, and the Defense Information System Agency (DISA).Share of DoD Total Contract Obligations by Component, 1990–2011To show the relative shares of total DoD contract obligations by the individual DoD departments from1990 to 2010, the percentage lines from the previous four figures are grouped together in Figure 3-9. Allvalues represented in the graph are expressed in percentage of total DoD contract obligations for eachyear.Driven by operations in Iraq and Afgh anistan, the Army’s contract obligations grew rapidly post- 2001 to claim the largest share of defense contract dollars (40 percent at its peak in 2008 compared to 27percent in 2001). However, with U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq, the Army’s share plunged from 38percent in 2010 to 34 percent in 2011. The Navy’s share of defense contract dollars held mostly steadyafter 2004 at 25 percent, following a long decline from 1990 levels. In the last two years observed, Navycontract obligations surged from 24 percent to 28 percent due to both decreasing Army obligations and asurge in Navy contract obligations. In an unprecedented occurrence, the Air Force dropped to the lowestshare of defense contract obligations in 2008 at nearly 17 percent and, after a rise to 18 percent in 2009and 2010, returned to 17 percent in 2011. However, this share does not reflect the Air Force’s contractobligations for classified projects. Furthermore, the decline in Air Force and Navy shares of DoD contractdollars obligated was absolute gains observed in both of these accounts over the past decade. Meanwhile,the collective share of the category of all Other DoD entities rose to its highest point at 21 percent of DoDcontract obligations in 2011, surpassing its previous peak in 2006.Defense Contract Obligations by Competition, 1990–2011To determine levels of competitiveness in contract awards, this report uses FPDS data on the number ofoffers received from distinct entities before a contract is awarded. Contracts awarded after receivingmultiple offers are deemed the most competitive, followed by those awarded after a single offer andcontracts awarded under no competition. Note that in Figure 4-1 below, unlabeled contracts are those thatare either unlabeled in FPDS or those that were determined by CSIS analysis to be erroneously labeled(for example, if the contract is designated as competed and there are zero bidders, or if it is designated asnoncompeted and there are several bidders). In keeping with previous CSIS reports, classification doesnot include the Fair Opportunity / Limited Sources column. Due to contradictions between that columnand the Extent Completed column, IDV contracts may be classified differently in this report than ingovernment publications.In Figure 4-1, total DoD contract obligations (presented earlier in Figure 2-1) are broken into four broad categories: competition with multiple offers, competition with a single offer, no competition, andunlabeled contracts.Competition in DoD contracting was stable between 1990 and 1996, with between 42 and 47 percent of obligations going to contracts that were competed and received multiple offers, and between 34and 38 percent going to contracts that were not competed. From 1997 through 2001, the shares for bothcompetition with multiple offers and no competition increased by approximately 5 percent; this wasprimarily a result of a decrease in unlabeled contracts. As a result, this change may merely reflect betterreporting rather than a change in contracting practice. Also notable is the period from 1997 to 2000, whencontracts labeled ―No Competition‖ (Unlabeled Exception) represented the vast majority of No Competition contract value; this data deficiency was corrected starting in 2001.From 2000 through 2011, DoD contract dollars awarded with no competition and withcompetition with multiple offers have both increased at a 7 percent annual growth rate. The share ofcontracts that had no competition declined from a high of 41.5 percent in 2001 to 36.9 percent in 2010,but increased again to 39.6 percent in 2011. Meanwhile, competition with multiple offers, which accounted for 50 percent of contract value in 2010, fell to 48.6 percent in 2011.Competitively awarded contracts receiving only a single offer increased from $9 billion in 2000to $44 billion in 2011. This is down from $48 billion in 2010, but overall, competitions receiving only asingle offer have increased at a 15.1 percent annual growth rate since 2000. Looking at the 2008 to 2011downturn period, however, competition with a single offer declined at nearly two and a half times the rateof competition with multiple offers (-4.4 percent versus -1.8 percent annual growth, respectively). Nonetheless, competition with a single offer accounted for 11.7 percent of contract dollars in 2011, whichshould be of concern to those in and out of government advocating for greater use of competition. Factorscontributing to this trend might include:s, or such that one company has a significant and obvious advantage;-heritage defense contractors;scares away potential competitors.Defense Contract Obligations by Funding Mechanism, 1990–2011Figure 4-2 presents trends in the choice of funding mechanism for DoD contract dollars. Funding mechanisms, or the conditions under which the government pays its obligations, are divided here into thefollowing categories: cost reimbursement, fixed price, time and materials (a form of cost based contractdistinguishable from cost reimbursement by the responsibilities assumed by the customer and the contractor), and ―combination‖ (a mix of cost and fixed price).The 1990s saw a significant increase in the use of cost reimbursement contracts, at the expense of fixed price contracts. Cost reimbursement contracts, which accounted for only 18.4 percent of DoDcontract dollars in 1990, rose to a high of 34.7 percent in 1998, while fixed price contracts, which accounted for 74.3 percent of DoD contract dollars in 1990, dropped to 58.7 percent in 1998. This trendbegan to reverse itself in 1999, but the shares of fixed price and cost reimbursement contracts have notreturned to their 1990 levels.The data for 2000 to 2011 reveal additional interesting trends. Fixed price contracts grew at an8.2 percent annual growth rate for 2000 to 2011, compared to 7 percent for cost reimbursement. For theyears 2008 to 2011, the change is even more pronounced: the total value of fixed price contracts decreased slightly (-0.5 percent annual growth rate), compared to a 4.9 percent annual growth rate for costreimbursement contracts. This change is driven by a $2 billion decrease in fixed price contract valuebetween 2010 and 2011, in parallel to a $3 billion increase in cost reimbursement contract value. Within the fixed price category, there was an $11 billion decline in basic Fixed price, along with increases of $6 billion and $2 billion in Fixed price Incentive and Fixed price with Economic Price Adjustment. In the cost reimbursement category, Cost Plus Award Fee contracting declined by $7 billionbetween 2000 and 2011, countered by increases of $6 billion and $3 billion in Cost Plus Fixed Fee andCost Plus Incentive, respectively. The increased use of incentive fees is consistent with recent government-wide contracting policy, but the relative shift from fixed price to cost plus is not. While contracts labeled Combination, which include elements of both cost-based and fixed price contracts, declined significantly in 2009 and 2010, their value nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011,from $6.3 billion to $11.4 billion. This is of concern because with combination contracts, it is impossibleto determine how many dollars are awarded on a fixed price or cost basis. For example, in the $11.4billion awarded in 2011, it is possible that $9 billion was awarded on a cost basis and $2.4 billion wasawarded on a fixed price basis, which would significantly affect the trend lines for the two categories.This category bears watching in FY 2012 to see if this rise was a one-year anomaly or the start of a trend.Defense Contract Obligations by Vehicle, 1990–2011In Figure 4-3, total DoD contract obligations are broken out by contract vehicles. The Indefinite DeliveryVehicles (IDV) category is further broken out into Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), Multiple AwardIndependent Delivery Contracts (IDCs), and Single Award IDCs. Purchase Orders and Definitive Contracts form separate categories.The key trend for DoD contract vehicles in the 1990s was the rapid decline in the use of purchase orders. Claiming a 36 to 40 percent share of total DoD contract value from 1990 to 1994, purchase ordersfell to below 23 percent in 1995 and 1996 and to below 1.5 percent in 1997. Since then, purchase ordershave not exceeded 3 percent of total DoD contract value. In 1997, definitive contracts accountedtwo-thirds of overall DoD contract value, with IDVs (primarily Single Award IDCs) taking up most of theremainder. The share going to definitive contracts declined for the rest of the 1990s, but remained over 61percent in 1999.From 2000 onward, IDVs gradually overtook definitive contracts as the majority of DoD contract value. Definitive contracts and IDVs held 59.3 and 38.9 percent shares, respectively, of overall DoDcontract value in 2000, compared to 42.1 percent for definitive contracts and 55.1 percent for IDVs in2010. This trend reversed somewhat in 2011, as the share of overall DoD contract value going to IDVsdropped to 52.4 percent, while the share going to definitive contracts rose to 44.8 percent. This changewas driven by an increase of $9 billion in definitive contracts in 2011, along with a $10 billion drop inIDVs. Specifically, a $14 billion drop in Single Award IDC was paralleled by a $4 billion rise in FSScontracts.In the years 2000 to 2011, definitive contracts had a 4.7 percent annual growth rate, compared to 10.4 percent for IDVs. Within IDVs, Multiple Award IDCs grew the fastest (14.4 percent annual growthrate), followed by Single Award IDCs (9.5 percent annual growth rate) and FSS contracts (7.8 percentannual growth rate). For 2008 to 2011, overall IDVs (-3.0 percent annual growth rate) declined at almosttwice the rate of definitive contracts (-1.7 percent annual growth rate). This change was driven by a largedecrease in Single Award IDC value (-7.4 percent annual growth), along with a significant slowing of thegrowth in Multiple Award IDCs (7.0 percent annual growth rate).Top 20 DoD Contractors, 2001 and 2011DoD relies heavily on the private sector for the equipment and services needed to meet national securityrequirements. Firms supporting DoD vary significantly, ranging from large publicly traded firms to smallprivately held companies; from firms that generate a significant share of their revenue from DoD contractwork to companies whose share of revenue from defense contracts is but a fraction of overall operations.As the security environment changes over time, so does the composition of firms contracting withThis chapter surveys the industrial base supporting DoD over the past 10 years. The focus is on the top 20DoD contractors (i.e., those taking the largest shares of total DoD contract dollars) and on the breakdownof the industrial base into small, medium, and large companies.In 2001 DoD contract obligations reached some $181 billion awarded to some 46,000 contractors. In 2011, DoD contract awards totaled $375 billion and included slightly over 110,000 contractors. Table5-1 shows the top 20 DoD contractors for 2001 and 2011. The top 5 contractors are identified in a separate cadre. Values are expressed in millions of FY 2011 dollars.Total contract awards for the top 20 DoD contractors increased from $77 billion in 2001 to $163 billion in 2011. While contract revenue for the top 20 companies more than doubled, their share of thetotal DoD contract awards remained constant at 43 percent in 2001 and 2011. The share of the next top 15contractors increased from 13 percent of total DoD awards in 2001 to 17 percent of the total in 2011.The composition and ranking of the top 5 DoD contractors remained nearly intact. The only noticeable change between 2001 and 2011 is the result of an acquisition: in late 2001 Northrop Grumman(seventh) acquired Newport News Shipbuilding (third). The combined company, Northrop GrummanCorporation, became the third-largest defense contractor, a rank it held until early 2010. In 2011 NorthropGrumman spun off its shipbuilding business, the combined Newport News and Gulf Cost Shipbuilding,into a new company, Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). Following the spinoff, Northrop Grummandropped to fifth place on the top 20 list.A more substantial shift in the composition and market share over the past 10 years occurred among companies ranked 6 to 20. The number and market share of health care contractors, which increased from two in 2001 to three in 2011, and their market share rose from 1 percent to over 3 percentof total DoD contract awards. In absolute terms, contract values for health care firms more than tripled, inreal terms, between 2001 and 2011. If the top three health care firms in 2011 were combined, their dollarawards would total over $9 billion, and they would be ranked sixth on the list. This highlights the sharpgrowth in DoD health care expenses from an industrial base perspective. It also illustrates a key challengefor defense policymakers grappling with a defense budget drawdown: spiraling health care costs. The data seem to refute that the same defense firms are gaining an ever-larger share of themarket. In the past decade, the top 5 defense contractors actually lost market share, and of the firms inplaces 6 to 20, defense contract dollars went to different contractors over time.Defense Contract Obligations by Contractor Size, 2000–2011Figure 5-1 illustrates the changes in distribution of all DoD contract dollars across contractors classifiedby their relative sizes: small, medium, and large. In this report, any organization designated as small bythe FPDS database—according to the criteria established by the federal government—was categorized assuch. The threshold for a compan y to be considered ―large‖ is $3 billion in total annual revenue. Toprovide greater granularity in this analysis, the large category is further broken out into the ―Big 6‖contractors (Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems)and the rest of the large (greater than $3 billion in total annual revenue) contractors. Companies notdesignated as either small or large are considered ―medium.‖ Contracts awarded to subsidiaries are rolledinto their parent contractors’ data; thus, those contractors are not distinguished separately. This breakdown is not meant to reflect the federal standard for small business set asides and varies from thoserules in two critical ways. First, if FPDS reports that a small business has been acquired by a large business, CSIS classifies dollars obligated to that company as going to a larger contractor. Second, thisreport includes all contracts and does not exclude waived contracts (e.g., overseas contracts).A continuing area of concern for policymakers is the market share captured by small, medium, and large companies. In DoD contracting, a combination of growth in the market share of large contractors and small-business set-aside programs put pressure on mid-tier contractors, who have lostsignificant market share from a high of 35.6 percent in 2001 to a low of 25.4 percent in 2011. During the2008 to 2011 period, the contract value awarded to mid-tier firms has declined (-4.5 percent annualgrowth rate) faster than the value awarded to all other contractor size categories. The Big 6 have alsoshown the most significant fluctuation in market share during the current downturn; from 29 percent in2008, the share of contract value going to the Big 6 declined to 26.7 percent in 2010, with the gains splitbetween other large contractors and small contractors. This trend was reversed somewhat in 2011,。
上海英文资料翻译公司翻译报价
上海英文资料翻译公司翻译报价加-微-信：544609186精诚翻译公司全网最低5元百字起（市场价格10元，比传统翻译机构低40%左右，互联网+时代，省去中间的环节，价格低于翻译行业任何家翻译机构，5年经验保证，首推先翻译后付费模式，无效免单，免费试译，免费修改，为很多的大型外企和国企翻译过许多专业文件!五周年庆，五折优惠中，可以通过以上方式咨询！CANCER cells manage their energy production in a most peculiar way.Most cancer cells,however,use a less efficient mechanism called glycolysis to power themselves.They thus cut their mitochondria out of the loop.肿瘤细胞产生能量的方式极为特别。
正常细胞依靠线粒体（是由大约20亿年前寄居在单细胞动植物祖先体内的细菌演化而来）氧化糖分子从而释放有用的能量，而大多数肿瘤细胞则通过糖酵解作用来为自身供能。
这种作用机制效率较低，但不需要线粒体参与。
That cancer cells often rely on glycolysis was discovered by Otto Warburg in 1930.Now,it looks a lot more interesting,for Evangelos Michelakis and his colleagues at the University of Alberta,in Canada,are testing a drug called dichloroacetate that suppresses the Warburg effect and reactivates the mitochondria.The result shows why mitochondrial suppression is so important to tumours:when they are unsuppressed,the tumour they are in stops growing.肿瘤细胞通常依靠糖酵解供能是Otto Warburg于1930年发现的，但这一被后人称为“Warburg效应”的现象一直以来只是让人感到好奇而已，而且还颇有争议。
英文翻译价格每千字
精诚翻译团队震撼全行业最低价-翻译报价50元千字起（市场价格100以上，至少比传统翻译公司价格低40%或更多，互联网+ 时代，去中介运作，价格优势秒杀翻译行业任一一家机构和团体我们不仅仅是低价，同时我们已经为众多大型外企和国企翻译过许多专业文件，客户评价良好!联系我们可以百度搜索“精诚翻译”Sumaary of bills of quantities单号. 描述金额(US$)1.一般2.场地清理3.Excavation and filling for structure, river training & bridege protection works4.Piple vulvert and draining works5.Passage of traffic6.Sub-base and base7.Bituminous pavement works8.Concrete and pilling works9.Road furture and traffice marking nos10.SubtotalPhysical contingency-5% of subtotal(11)Price contingency 3.6% subtotal (11)Total priceBill NO. GeneralItem no. Description Unit Quantity Unit Rate $ Amount $1.05 a) Providing of furniture and equipment for the site laboratories in accorance with subcalse 141 (e)Of the specificationL.S 1.001.05 b）Plus % for contractors overheads and profit in accorance with sub-clase of the specifications.% 10.001.06 Maintenance of furniture and equipment including communcaiton and suppply of stationaery, computer supliers and other consumables for engineer’s offices in accordance with sub 141(f) of the psecification1.08 a）Vehicles for the engineer in accordance with subclause 141（I）of the specifications.I)Toyotal Land Cruizer, 4WD or equivalent(new car)II)Toyotal Prado, 4WD or equivalent (new car)III)Toyota Pickup,(new car)Subtotal1.08 b）Plus % for contractors overheads and profit in accorance with subclause 141(i) of the specifications1.09 Kilometer traveled by ve hicles for the engineer in accordance with the subclasue 141(j)I）Toyata Land cruizer, 4WD or equivalent (new car)II)Toyota Prado, 4WD or equivalent(new car)III）Toyota Pickup (new car)1.10 KiLOMETER TRAVELED BY rented vehicles for the engineer in accordance with subclause 141（k）of the specifications.1.11 Signboards in accordance with subclause 141 (n) of the specifications.1.12a Environmental monitoring works including resettlement and compliance with safety and security requirements.1.12 b Plus% for contractors overheads in accordane with subcaluse 141(p) of the specificatoin.s1.13 a Construction of 3 nos of wells including detailed hydro-gelogical investigation in accoradeance with sub-clause of the specifications.1.13 b plus % for constractor overheads and profit in accordance with subclause of 406(c) of the psecificaitons.1.14 a Shift and /or raise overhead communication lines and electric in accordance with sub-clause 406(b)Of the specifications.1.14b Plus % for contractors overheads and profit in accordance with subclause 406(b）偶Of the specifications.1.15 a Mogolian national geodetical Benchmark keeping in accordance with subclause 406(d) of the specifications.1.15 b pLUS % for contractors overheads and profit in accordance with subclause 406(d) of the specifications.1.16 a Facilities of road maintenance in accordance with sub-clause 406(e) of the specifications.1.16b pLUS % for contractors overheads and profit in accordance with subclause 406(e) of the specifications.2.01 Site clearance in accordance with subclause 406(a)of the specifications.3.01 Embankment constructio using materials from borrow areas in accordance with subclause 513(a)of the specifications.3.02Embankment constructio using materials from roadway excavations in accordance with subclause 513(a)of the specifications.3.03 Common excavation to spoil in accordance with subclause 513(b)of the specifications.3.04 Rockn excavation to spoil in accordance with subclause 513(c)of the specifications.3.05 Compaction of exisitng ground to 95% MDD (AASHTO T99) l in accordance with subclause 513(d)of the specifications.3.06 Rockfill to embankments in accordance with subclause 513(g)of the specifications.3.07 Excavation for side ditch accordance with subclause 513(h)of the specifications.3.08 Slope protection/Turfen sodding/in ccordance with subclause 513(i)of the specifications.3.09 Stone pitching of drains in accordane with subclause513（o）of the specifications4.01 Excavate for structure in soft materials in accordance with sub-clause 713(a) of the specification.4.02 Excavate for river training in soft materials in accordance with sub-clause 713(b) of the specification.4.03 Extra over sub-clause713（a）for excavation in hard material in accordance with sub-clause 713(d) of the specification.4.04 Granular filter materials in accordance with sub-clause 713(e) of the specification.4.05 Selected granular fill materials in accordance with sub-clause 713 (f ) of the specifications.4.06 Grouted stone pitching in accordance with 713 (g ) of the specificationsA) h=600 mm thk, Flat stone pavingB) h= 200mm thk, Slope pitching /road/4.07 Close-jointed riprap in ccordance with 713 (h ) of the specifications。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
上海专业翻译机构公司报价qq：544609186
精诚翻译公司全网最低5元百字起（市场价格10元，比传统翻译机构低40%左右，互联网+时代，省去中间的环节，直接对接客户，价格低于翻译行业任何家，六年经验保证，首推先翻译后付费模式，无效免单，免费试译，免费修改，为很多的大型外企和国企翻译过许多专业文件!五周年庆，更有折扣惊喜等，可以通过以上联系方式咨询！
一、名词的重复
A.名词作宾语时的重复
1.I must do my best to develop the students’ability to analyze and solve problems.
2.We should inspect and oil the machines before work.
3.Can you tell the chemical and physical characteristics about this substance?
B.名词作先行词的重复
1.Days and nights are very long on the moon,where one day is as long as two weeks on the earth.
2.A synthetic material equal to that alloy in strength has been created,which is very useful in industry.
二、动词的重复
1.Refrigerators,freezers and air-conditioners must obey not only the first law (energy conservation)but the second law as well.
2.The conflict spread everywhere,into little villages,as well as the cities.
三、代词的重复
A.人称代词的重复
1.There is air around us although we cannot see it.
2.She works extremely hard though still rather poor in health.
3.He hated failure;he had conquered it all this life,risen above it,and despised it in others.
B.代词that(或those)的重复
1.Einstein first considered that the maximum speed possible in the universe is that of light.
2.Translation from English into Chinese is not so easy as that from English into French.
C.物主代词的重复
1.The conductor has its properties,and the insulator has its own.
2.Medium waves have their uses,short waves have their uses.
D.Whoever,whichever等词的重复
1.Give the book to whoever wants to buy it.
2.You may solve the question in whichever way you know well.
四、译成汉语的叠字
1.The road was packed with a noisy crowd of men and women,who were selling and buying all kinds of things.
2.Walking up and down the empty room,he stopped here and there to touch or look.
3.She hoped she had mixed enough fact and fiction in her story to mislead him.
4.They read the afternoon through,while the cold November rain fell from the sky upon the quiet house.。