《招标投标法实施条例》对招标人进行了更严格的限制

商法专栏

商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

98

2012年2月 | February 2012

中

国《招标投标法》实施12年之际，中国国务院于2011年12月20

日发布了《中华人民共和国招标投标法实施条例》，《招投标实施条例》自2012年2月1日起施行。该条例对招标人的招标行为所作的一系列限定值得注意。

禁止利害关系人参与投标

《招投标实施条例》颁布之前，常常出现招标人的下属单位及其他关联单位作为投标人参与投标的情况，而该做法并未被法律明确禁止。

而《招投标实施条例》第34条规定：“与招标人存在利害关系可能影响招标公正性的法人、其他组织或者个人，不得参加投标。”

至于何为“利害关系”，该条例并未作出明确具体的界定。在认定 “利害关系” 是否存在、招标公正性是否受到影响等问题上，《招投标实施条例》把自由裁量权留给了行政主管部门。

这种利害关系并不需要已经实质损害到招投标活动，而只需要对招投标的公正性构成“潜在”的威胁即可。因此，上述规定相当于关上了招标人的下属单位、关联单位等利害关系人参加投标的大门。对采用BT 、BOT 特许经营方式的项目而言，该规定将对其招标产生巨大影响。

限制标底的使用

在既往的招投标活动中，如招标人编制标底的，招标人通常将标底乘以一定系数后作为拦标价。

而《招投标实施条例》第50条明确规

定，标底仅作评标参考，不得以投标报价是否接近标底作为中标条件，也不得以投标报价超过标底上下浮动范围作为否决投标的条件。

同时，该条例第27条规定，招标人不得规定最低投标限价，该规定也推翻了既往的某些惯常做法。

需要注意的是，《招投标实施条例》规定标底仅作为评标的一项参考，但标底在评标中具体该怎样使用（比如，能否作为商务评分的依据之一？），这点并不明确，有待实践中招投标管理部门的进一步自由裁量。

禁止采用“短名单”

按照《招标投标法》的规定，招标人不得在招标的过程中指定某货物和服务的品牌、原产地、供应商等内容。但是在既往的招标投标过程中，招标人出于对各种因素的考虑，可能会提供一份包含品牌、原产地、供产商等内容的名录，投标人只能在该名录中选择供应商或分包商，该名录即所谓的“短名单”。

《招投标实施条例》尚未颁布时，各地对短名单的监管宽严不一，有的地区明确禁止使用短名单，有的地区却默许短名单的使用。

而《招投标实施条例》第32条明确规定，招标人不得限定或指定特定的专利、商标、品牌、原产地或供应商。“限定”一词表明，招标人经常采用的以“短名单”方式限定货物、服务提供者的做法，是不获允许的。另外需要注意的是，《招投标实施条例》实施后，招标人在描述技术要求时，若在列举的品牌后加上“或同档次”等字样，是

否属于“限定品牌”？这一问题可能会存在争议，有待招投标行政管理部门的进一步 解释。

禁止滥用特定行业的业绩

在实践中出现的虚假招标、“明招暗定”的现象，多是以不合理条件来限制、排斥投标人及潜在投标人。对此现象，《招标投标法》虽明确禁止，但缺乏具体的执行标准。为此，《招投标实施条例》明确列举了七种以不合理条件来限制、排斥投标人的行为。其中包括招标人不得以特定行业的业绩作为加分条件或中标条件。笔者认为，投标人在相关的特定行业的业绩是衡量其是否具备完成项目能力的重要评判标准之一，不应一概否定。如果限制业绩作为评分标准，或许能体现公平原则，但会导致整个招标失去竞争性，无法做到优中选优。

《招投标实施条例》实行后，招标文件中与行业业绩要求相关的评分办法具体如何设置，还有待进一步观察。

此外，《招投标实施条例》也补充了可以不进行招标的项目。例如出现以下情况时可以不招标：需要采用不可替代的专利或者专有技术；采购人依法能够自行建设、生产或者提供；已通过招标方式选定的特许经营项目投资人依法能够自行建设、生产或者提供；需要向原中标人采购工程、货物或者服务，否则将影响施工或者功能配套要求等。

同时，《招投标实施条例》进一步明确了五种《招标投标法》第33条中涉及的弄虚作假行为，并细化规定了相关的法律责任。g

招标人面对更严格的限制

Bid inviters face more restrictions

能源、天然资源与基建项目

王霁虹

Wang Jihong

万商天勤律师事务所执行合伙人

Managing Partner V&T Law Firm 张晓峰

Zhang Xiaofeng

万商天勤律师事务所合伙人Partner

V&T Law Firm

北京市朝阳区东四环中路39号

华业国际中心A 座3层

邮编: 100025

3/F Tower A, Huaye International Center 39 Dongsihuan Zhonglu, Chaoyang District

Beijing 100025, China

电话 Tel: +86 10 8225 5610传真 Fax: + 86 10 8225 5600电子信箱 E-mail: wangjihong@

CORRESpONdENtS

99

商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL February 2012 | 2012年2月

O

n 20 December 2011, the State Council issued the PRC Invitation and Submission of Bids Law Implement-ing Regulations (the “Implementing R egulations”), which will come into effect on 1 February 2012. The imple-menting regulations come 12 years after the introduction of the PRC Invitation and Submission of Bids Law, and impose a series of restrictions on the procedures for bid invitations.

No bids by related parties

Until recently, it was not uncommon for subsidiaries and affiliates of a bid inviter to participate in the bidding, as this was not expressly prohibited.

However, Article 34 of the Imple-menting Regulations now provides that “A legal person, other organization or individual that has a material interest in the bid inviter that could affect the impartiality of the bid invitation may not participate in the bidding.” The Implementing Regulations do not define what constitutes “material interest”, leaving the relevant authorities to determine whether it exists and whether the impartiality of the bid invitation is affected by it.

Material interests need not have an actual substantive adverse impact on the bid invitation and submission activi-ties, just the “potential” to compromise their impartiality. The impact of Article 34 is therefore to prevent subsidiaries, affiliates and other materially-interested parties of bid inviters from participating in the bidding process. The provision is likely to have an especially profound impact on bid invitations with respect to BT and BOT concession projects.

Limits on use of reserve prices

In the past, if the bid inviter set a reserve price at an auction, it would also commonly set a ceiling for the buying price (ie, as a multiple of the reserve price).

However, Article 50 of the Imple-menting R egulations specifies that a reserve price should now serve only as a reference for the evaluation of bids. The fact that a bid quote is close to a reserve price may not serve as a condition for winning the bid, and the fact that a bid quote exceeds the upper and lower limits around the reserve price may not serve as a condition for denying a bid.

Additionally, Article 27 specifies that a bid inviter may not set a minimum bid quote, overturning certain common past practices.

One important point is that although the Implementing R egulations specify that a reserve price should serve only as a reference when evaluating bids, they fail to address how a specific reserve price may be used in carrying out the evaluation (for example, can it serve as a basis for commercial grading?). This issue will ultimately be resolved after authorities begin exercising their discretion.

Prohibition on use of shortlists

The Invitation and Submission of Bids Law specifies that a bid inviter may not, in the course of the bid invitation process, designate the brand, origin, supplier, etc, of a product or service. However, in the past, bid inviters sometimes issued a shortlist specifying various brands, origins and suppliers during the course of a bid invitation process that required bidders to select suppliers or contractors from those in a specified group.

Before the issuance of the Imple-menting R egulations, the extent to which the use of shortlists was regulated varied from place to place. Some regions expressly prohibited their use and others tacitly permitted it.

However, Article 32 of the Implement-ing Regulations now specifies that a bid inviter may not designate or restrict use of specific patents, trademarks, brands, origins or supplies.

Another question is whether the use of certain words by a bid inviter de-scribing technical requirements such as “of equivalent grade” after a listing of brands will constitute a “restriction of brands”. This issue remains unclear and will have to await interpretation by bid invitation and submission administration authorities.

No performance-related criteria

In practice, many fraudulent bid invi-tations (also known as “invitations in the light but determinations in the dark”) involve use of unreasonable conditions in order to limit or preclude bidders. Although the Invitation and Submis-sion of Bids Law expressly prohibits this practice, it failed to specify which

acts were prohibited. The Implement-ing R egulations therefore specifically preclude seven types of unreasonable conditions commonly used to restrict or preclude bidders. These include a prohibition against bid inviters using the performance of a specific industry as a condition for being awarded the bid, or for setting other criteria relating to it.However, where the performance of a relevant specific industry is an important criteria for a bid inviters to use in deciding if it has the capacity to complete a project, the use of perfor-mance-related standards should not be rejected out of hand.

R estrictions on performance as a criterion for assessing a bid may appear fair, but may also make the entire bid-invitation process uncompetitive. Once the Implementing Regulations come into effect, it will be worth watching how bid invitation documents are structured in relation to the method for awarding points relating to industry performance requirements.

The Implementing R egulations also provide more detail on projects for which bid invitations are not required. For example, bid invitations need not be made:

• where a non-substitutable patent or proprietary technology must be used.• where the procurer can itself legally carry out the construction, production or provision.

• where a concession-project investor that has been selected through a bidding process can itself legally carry out the construction, production or provision.

• where works, goods or services need to be procured from the original winning bidder, failing which construction or functional requirements will be affected.The Implementing R egulations also specify five types of fraudulent acts mentioned in Article 33 of the Invitation and Submission of Bids Law and set out in detail the relevant legal liability. g

Energy, resources & infrastructure

王霁虹是万商天勤律师事务所执行合伙人， 中国城市建设领域的知名法律专家

Wang Jihong is the managing partner of V&T Law Firm. She practises in the field of infra-structure development

张晓峰是万商天勤律师事务所合伙人

Zhang Xiaofeng is a partner at V&T Law Firm