2023年外文文献及译文moban

本科毕业设计外文文献及译文文献、资料题目：TheＳｉgnifiｃanceoｆtheTenｄeriｎgＣontrａｃtｏntｈｅＯpｐoｒtuniｔieｓforＣｌiｅｎtｓtoＥncouｒａgeContｒaｃtor-lｅdInｎovatiｏn文献、资料来源:国道数据库文献、资料发表（出版)日期:2023.１0.11院(部）:管理工程学院专业：工程造价班级:价本0504姓名：刘兆君学号:指导教师:黄伟典王大磊翻译日期：20２3．6.1４外文文献：TheＳｉgnificａncｅoftheＴenｄeriｎgContrａctｏnＴhｅＯpportuｎitieｓfｏrClieｎｔsｔoEｎｃｏuraｇｅＣoｎtractor－leｄIｎｎｏvatioｎABSＴRACTDuｒingthｅtenderingpｒocｅsｓｆoｒmｏstmaｊorcoｎstｒucｔioｎcontracｔstherｅｉstheoｐporｔｕnityforｂｉddersｔｏsuggｅｓtalternativeinｎovatｉｖesolutｉｏnｓ.Clearlyclienｔsarekeｅntotａｋeadvanｔageoftheseopporｔuｎitieｓ,aｎdequaｌlyconｔｒactoｒｓwantｔousethｅirexpｅrtisetｏeｓtaｂlishcｏmpｅｔitiveadvａnｔage.Ｂothpartｉesｍａyvｅrywellbenｅfitfromtｈeeｎｃouragemｅntofsuｃｈinnoｖaｔiｏnanｄthｅavaｉｌaｂilitｙｏｆcheａpeｒｍethodsoｆconstructionthaｎhaｖebeｅｎcoｎtemplatedbythetｅndeｒｉnｇauthoritｙ．Howeverｒecenｔdｅｖeloｐmｅｎtsｉnｃｏmｍonlawhａveraisｅddoubtsabouttheaｂiｌityofoｗnerｓtoseekalteｒｎａｔiｖeｔｅndeｒswithoutplaciｎgtheｍselvesaｔriｓkofｌiｔｉｇatioｎ.Ｔhiscomｍonlawhａsｒecognｉｓeｄthｅeｘisteｎｃｅoｆthｅso-caｌled‘tendeｒingｃonｔｒaｃｔ’or‘procｅssｃｏntract’.Sincetheｔenｄerｉngprｏcessisiｎhｅrenｔｌypriｃｅcompｅｔiｔivｅ,theappｌicaｔiｏnoｆthetｅnｄerｉngcoｎtractcｏｎcｅｐｔiｓlikelytoｓｅvｅrelyinhiｂiｔtｈeoppoｒtunityforａlterｎatｉvetenders.Ｔhispapｅｒｉsｐrｉｍａｒilyｂaseｄｏnｔｈelitｅrａtｕrerｅｖiｅw.Theａｉmofｔhisｐaperｉstｏhighlightｔｈｅproblemsｗithtｈecomｐｅｔitivetendｅｒingprocessiｎrelaｔionｔocoｎtractoｒ-ledinnovatioｎandｅxplorｅwaysinwhiｃhｏwnerscandｅｖeｌｏｐprocuｒementproceduresｔhatｗiｌlallｏwandencoｕraｇeinnoｖationfrｏｍｃonｔracｔｏrs.PROBLＥMＳWＩTHCＯMPETITIVETENDEＲINGＴhｅｔradiｔｉoｎaltenｄerｉngprｏcesswaｓdesｉｇnedtoｐｒoduｃｅｄｉrｅｃtpriｃecｏmpｅtiｔionforaspecifｉedproduｃt.Eｖaluatioｎoｆtenｄerｓcoｕldonｌybeｃonfineｄtopriceａloｎeｂycreａtiｎgaｓysteｍinwｈicｈpriｃeistheｏnｌycriteｒionthatcoulｄvarywhｉｌｅdesignａndtｅｃhｎicａlcontｅｎtarethesameｆorｅaｃｈｃoｍpeｔingtenｄer.Ａｌｂeittｈecontrａctperｉodisstiｐuｌatedasconstant,ownersoｆtenencouraｇｅtendererstoｓubmitasecｏndtendeｒwhichoffersanaｌterｎativeprｉceforanalternatｉvｅtｉmｅｐｅrforｍaｎｃe.Tenderｅrswouldacｈieveｔｈiｓbｙrewｏrkingtheｉｒｔｅnderprｏｇraｍme,findinｇtheoｐtimumcontractperiod,andadｊustiｎgtheｔｅnderｐｒiceａccordｉｎgly.Eaｃhtｅnderｅｒwoulｄcompｅteｔofｉndｎovelwａysoforｇａｎｉsinｇthewoｒkｍetｈｏdｔhatｗouldallｏｗｎｏtonlytheminｉmuｍcｏnsｔructioncoｓtbuｔalsomaｘimumｐrofiｔmarginwiｔhｉnthepｒiceprｏposed．However,tｈisproｃessiｓalｗayscoｎfinedｂyｔhｅbｏundarｙoftｈeowner’sdeｓｉｇn.Inthｉsｗａy,theｓuccｅssfulteｎderｅr’sｓｃopetobeinｎｏvatｉvｅiｓvｅrｙｌimitｅｄ．Wｈeｎevalｕatiｎgaｌternativeｔenｄｅrs,theownerｉscｏnｆrontｅdｗiｔhtｈedutyofequaltｒｅatmentａｎdｆaiｒnesstｏalｌｔendereｒs.Ifｏneiｓtobeｐrｅferredｏnａｎalternatiｖetender，ｗｈｉcｈiｓｎｏtａｃoｎｆormingｔendｅrintermsoｆｔheoriginａlinvitatiｏn,hoｗcａnaｌltｅndｅrerｓbｅｔreaｔedequallyandfaｉｒｌy?Anｙindｉviduａlｉsmｅｘｈｉbitedoｎtｈepartｏfaｔendｅreｒoutsｉdetｈepeｒmｉttedｓcopｅofpｒｉceandtimeｍustdｉsquａlifythattｅndｅrfromthｅｏwｎeｒ’ｓcｏnsideratioｎbecａuｓeｉｔdoesｎotconfｏｒmtoｔｈeiｎvitａtioｎ．Thereｆoｒｅ,theｔrａditｉoｎalｔenderｉngｐｒｏｃessｐrevents，rｅstrictsｏｒeｖendｉscoｕragescｏntractor-ｌedｉnnovaｔｉｏｎ.SongｅraｎdＩbbｓbｅｌiｅｖｅdtｈattheuseoｆｄｅｓign-anｄ-buiｌdproｃurｅmentｍetｈodwｏuldｅｎcouraｇeiｎnｏvａtiｏninthebuildinｇｐrocess.Thisprocuremenｔｍethｏｄimｐｏsessｉｎglepoinｔrespoｎsｉｂiliｔyonconｔracｔoｒforｔhｅcｏmｐletebuilｄingaｎｄitstenderiｎgprocｅsｓdｉfferｆｒｏmthatoｆｔhｅｔradｉtｉonalproｃuremeｎtmeｔhoｄinthａtitmusｔbｅｃａpableofevａluaｔiｎｇdesignａswｅllａsｐrｏｄuctiｏnｃapabilitｙ,tｉmeａｎdpｒiｃe，aｌlｏｎacｏmpetitiveｂasiｓ．Thisiｓnoteａｓy.Ｃｏmｐeｔitiｖedesignｉsnoteａsytoｅvaluateinthecｏntｅｘｔoｆｔｅndering.Theｏbjectivｉｔｙappearｓtｏberｅplaceｄbysubｊectiｖityinｐicｋingｔhewｉnｎｅｒ,anｄｔｈeapparentｉntｅgrityoｆtｈebiddｉｎgprｏｃessｉｓlｏst,unlｅssｖeｒyclearcriteriaaｒeeｓｔａｂlisｈedattheoｕtseｔfｏｒeｖaluaｔioｎoｆcｏmpetｉngｄesiｇｎs．Tｈisalｓomeanstoｓayｔｈａｔtheteｎderprocｅssｒulesmｕstbedesiｇnedａｓｓucｈthatitencｏurａgescontraｃtor-lｅdｉnnovatｉon,yetatthesametimeplacessｏｍelimitｏnthｅsｃoｐeforsｕｃｈinｎovation.Ｔｈelimitsmustbesuchthatthepｒojecｔdeliveredisstｉｌlｔhｅprojectforwｈichtenｄerswｅrｅinviteｄ．ＳongｅｒａｎdIｂbｓ,wｉtｈresｐeｃttothiｓaｓｐeｃt,ａｓｓertｅｄtｈａtoneｃｏｎcernofpｕblｉcaｇeｎciesishowtoａllｏwforｉnnoｖationwhilemａinｔaiｎinｇappｒoｐｒｉａtecoｎtｒolｏfceｒｔaindｅsignaｓｐｅｃｔｓoｆtheｐroｊｅｃt.Detｅrmｉｎinganapprｏpｒiateｂaｌaｎceｏfinｎovatｉoｎandcoｎtｒoｌindesignanｄadequatelycommuｎｉcatingｔhｅｄｅsiredｂalancｅtｏpｏtentialdesign－and-buiｌdtｅndeｒerｓprovidesaｓiｇｎiｆicanｔchaｌｌengetopubｌicsecｔorａgencies．THE‘TＥNDERINGＣONTＲAＣＴ’Deｖeloｐmeｎｔsinthelawｒeｌatingtotenｄerstradｉtiｏnaｌｌytreａｔedan‘iｎvitationtoｔenｄer’oｒa‘ｒeqｕeｓｔｆortｅｎderｓ’aｓnoｍorethａnaninvｉtatioｎｔotreat,ａniｎdicationtｈaｔtheowｎeｒwasreadｙtodobusｉneｓs–soｍeｔｈingpｒioｒｔoandsｈortofanoffer.Inoｔherwｏrds,anｉnvitatｉontotreaｔｗasｎｏtａnoffertomakeacontｒaｃtwithanypｅrｓoｎwｈomightａctontheinviｔａtioｎ,butmerｅlyafｉrsｔｓｔepｉnneｇotiationwhichmay,orｍaynｏt,lｅadtoacｏｎtrａct.Whｅneachtenderersuｂｍitｔeｄｉｔｓtｅndｅrinｔhｅprｅscriｂedform,itamouｎteｄtｏａnoｆferwhｉcｈcｏｕｌdｂerｅgａｒdedａsａnoｆｆertomaｋeacｏntｒacｔ.Iftｈｅofｆｅrmeｔwithunequｉvocalacｃeptaｎce，coｎtrａctｕａlobligaｔionarosｅbeｔweeｎtheｏｗnｅrandthｅｓｕccｅｓｓfultｅｎdｅrer.Receｎｔly,ｔhｅmodeｒｎviewtuｒnsthiｓtｈeoryuｐsidedown.Theｒeｅxistｓwhaｔiskｎoｗnasｔｈe‘twocｏntｒact’aｎａlｙsisiｎvolvｉｎｇtheemergenceoftｈe‘teｎｄｅringcoｎtｒact’.Theinvitatiｏntotｅndeｒｉsnowiｎsｏｍeｃｉrcuｍsｔaｎcｅｓｔobetreaｔedasanoffertｏmaｋeaｃｏｎtractwhiｃhａtenderｅracｃｅptswhenｉtsubｍｉtsacｏnｆｏｒmｉngtender.Theownｅrmakｅsanoffｅｒtoeａchteｎｄererｗhichmightbewoｒdedａｓfollows:“Iｆyouｓubmitatｅnｄeriｎrｅsponsetomｙinvitationａｎｄwhiｃhcｏmplieswithtｈesｔiｐulatｉonsmａde,Iwｉｌｌcoｎsidｅrthatｔｅndeｒ…”.Theｒｅisｎoｏbligatｉoｎatallatｔｈiｓpointontheｓideofthetｅndeｒerｓ，butifaconformiｎgtｅndeｒｉssubmitteｄ,acｏntractisformeｄbetweenｏwnｅrandtendereｒwhiｃhhaｓbeendescｒibｅdhereａsｔhe‘tendｅriｎgconｔrａｃt’ｏrｄeｓｃriｂedｅlsｅwhereasa‘prｅ-aｗardｃonｔract’or‘pｒoｃeｓsｃoｎtracｔ’．Thiscoｎtｒacｔisquiｔedistinctｆroｍthｅcontrａｃtevenｔualｌyｅnｔｅrｅｄintoｗｉｔhｔｈesuccｅssｆulｔenｄerer,ｃalledthemaincontｒact.Ｏblｉgaｔiｏnsｏfacｏntｒactuaｌnatureｔhｅreforearisebeｔwｅｅnｔheowneraｎdeachteｎdｅrerwhｏhaｓｓubmitｔedaｐrｏposal.Justasｔｈｅtenｄｅｒcontｒaｃtplaceｓoｂligationsontｈeowner，ｅachtendｅrａlsoimｐosesobｌigationsｏnthetendeｒｅr.Oncｅthｅｔendｅrhaｓbeｅｎsubmｉtｔeｄtotheｏｗｎeｒ,meaｎｉngｔheｔｅndｅrorfirsｔcoｎtracthａsbeenformeｄ，ｔhｅowｎerbecomesｏbligedtｏeacｈｔendｅrｅrｔopｅrfoｒmitｓｓidｅofｂargain,wｈｉchaｔthiｓｓtageｉsａnｏbｌigａｔｉｏｎtｏｃonsiｄｅraｌlｃonfｏrmingtendeｒs.Ｂｙｔhｅsａmetoken，tendeｒersbecomｅoｂｌigeｄｔonotsiｍplywitｈdｒaｗｔheirtender，thetenderｗｉlｌｒｅmainopeｎforaｓtipulateｄperiｏdｏfｔｉme.Unｄertｈｅ‘ｔwoｃoｎｔract’ｐriｎｃiｐle,ateｎｄererwhｏmakeｓamｉstaｋemayｆinｄtｈaｔthetｅｎderisａcｃeｐtedｗithnooｐｐｏｒtｕnitytoｅｓｃapeｅvｅnifｔhereiｓanerrorｉntenｄeｒcompｉlation．Ｆorｔhesakeofｃｌarity,iｔｍaybｅstateｄtｈatｔhesubmｉｓsionofaｃonforminｇtenderinｒeｓｐｏnsetｏaninvitaｔｉoｎcancrｅatecontrａctuａlobｌiｇａtionsforbothpaｒtiｅｓ.Iｎthecａse：Onｔarioｖ.RonEngｉneering&ConstruｃtionＥaｓｔeｒｎＬtｄ,ｔheCourｔofCａnadaｈeｌｄthatａcｏntrａctwａsｂroughtiｎtoｂeiｎgaｕtｏmaticａllyｕｐｏｎtｈesuｂmiｓｓiｏnｏfarespｏｎsivetｅｎｄeｒbyeａchtｅnｄeｒeｒ.Hａｖiｎgesｔablisｈedｔhaｔa‘ｔenderｉngcontract’exｉｓts,ｉｔistｈｅnimpｏrtaｎtｔocｏnsｔｉtｕtewhatthetｅｒmsareofthatcontract.Tｈetｅrｍsareｄeｒivedfroｍthetenderconditｉoｎs,the‘tenｄerｃｏde’,andｏtherreｌｅvaｎtｍａteｒialsuｃｈaslegｉslatｉoｎandcｏrｒespoｎdence．Alloｒsｏｍeofｔhepｒｏvｉsionsofｔhｅ‘tenderｃｏdｅ’maybｅinｃorporateｄinthｅ‘tendｅringcｏntracｔ’ｂｙrｅferｅnceand/orbyiｍｐlｉｃatｉon．Ａtermsmaybｅimplｉeｄtoｔｈeefｆecｔｔhａttheownermustcoｎsideraｌlcoｎfoｒmingｔendｅrｓ,ｍusttreａtａｌlｔendereｒsｅqualｌyandfaｉrlｙ,ａnｄmuｓtawａrｄｏnlyacontractforｔhｅprｏjeｃｔtｅndereｄfor.GUIDＡNCＥONCONＴＲACTORSELＥCTIOＮTheSignificanｃeofProｂｉtyinTeｎdｅrinｇProbitｙｉsdeｆｉnedinｖarｉｏusｄｉｃtiｏｎａｒiesａs“moｒalexcellｅnce,integrｉty，ｕpｒiｇhｔness,coｎscientiousness,hoｎeｓty,ｓinｃeritｙ”.Iｎtheｔenｄeｒingｃｏｎｔext,ｉtgｅｎeralｌydepeｎｄｓuponｃonfiｄｅｎtialityofdoｃuｍentatioｎanddｅcisioｎmａｋｉnｇ，objｅcｔivｅａnｄcｏnsｉsｔentaｓｓesｓmｅntateachpｈａseofdｅｃisionmａkｉnganｄresolutionoｆanｙｐosｓiｂle,pｅｒceiｖedorａcｔuａlｃoｎflictsｏfintｅrｅst．Thus,oｎｅoｆtheprimaｒｙoｂjｅｃｔivｅsｏfｐrobityiｎtenｄeringisｔomainｔainthｅｉnteｇrｉtyoｆthebiddinｇpｒoｃｅss.TheCanadｉancouｒtintｈeＲoｎEngiｎｅｅｒingcasｅrｅfｅrreｄtoｔhisａstｈeobligatiｏｎofｏwnerstotｒeａtａlｌtenｄererseｑuａlｌyａnｄfairly.Johnsｔonｅassertsthatｔｒanｓpareｎcyｉntheentirecontｒactingoutprocesｓiｓｅssｅntialsothaｔpoｔｅｎｔialｃｏnｔractoｒｓandmemｂｅrｓoｆthepｕbliccanhaｖeconfｉdencｅinｔheoｕtcoｍes.Iｆｉnｔegrｉｔyanｄimｐartialityarenotevｉdent，ｔｅｎdeｒerｓmaybereluctanttoｍａkｅabid,tｈｅfｏrmuｌaｔionｏfwhiｃhｒequｉresｓignificａntamountofｔimeandrｅsoｕrｃｅs.Iｎtｈatcase,ｃｏmpetiｔionisｌikelｙｔobeleｓｓenedandｔhｅｂestｖalｕefoｒmoｎeymａynotｂeａchiｅｖｅd.Inprinｃiplｅ，ｒecenｔdeveloｐｍｅｎtincommonｌａwaｔteｍｐｔｓtomaｉｎtainｓoｍeinｔegrｉtyｉｎthｅtenｄeｒiｎｇpｒｏｃeｓｓbyｒeｃognisｉngtheexisteｎceofthｅpａrｔｉes’obliｇatioｎstoｏneａｎoｔｈersotｈattheownerｃanｎotｓimplｙｒｅjectｏraccｅpttｅndersaｓiｔplｅaｓeｓ,orcanｎoｔｎeｇｏtiatewｉｔhoneｏrmｏretｅndeｒｅrｓtoproducesatisfactorydeaｌ．Ａｓmeｎｔionｅｄprｅｖiouｓｌy，ｔhｅconｔracｔｕaｌobligationbetweentｈeｐartｉesisreferrｅdtoａsthｅ‘tｅｎdｅrｉngcontｒact’.Ｂｒeachofｔhｅ‘tenderiｎgｃoｎtract’entｉｔlｅstheinjurｅdｐartytｏｔｈenｏrｍaｌrｅmeｄyｏfｄamages.Ｐroｂityiｎｔheteｎｄeringprocｅｓsensurｅｓthatfａirａndequaltreaｔｍenｔtｏaｌltｅnderｅrｓispｕtinｐlaceanｄmaintaｉnedsothatnotｅrｍｏfｔｈe‘teｎdｅｒingcontracｔ’ｉsｌｉkeｌytoｂebrｅａchｅｄ.AccorｄinｇtoJohnｓtonｅ，cｏmmonprobｉtyｏｂjeｃtiｖesａre:·toｅnsureallresｐoｎdeｎtsａrｅassesｓedobｊectivelyandconsistｅnｔly·tｏeｎsｕreｉntｅgritｙinallevaluationaｎdselectiｏnprocess·tｏｅnsuｒｅallｃoｎｆideｎtialinformaｔionisｓｅcｕｒｅd·toaddrｅssaｎｙpｏteｎｔiａｌ,oractuａlcｏnflictsoｆinteｒest·toprｏｍotｅｄefensibｉlｉｔｙofｐrｏcess．GuidｅｌinestoAvoidBreaｃhofｔhｅ‘TｅndeｒｉngＣoｎtract’inｔheCompetiｔiｖｅBｉddingＰｒoｃｅsｓOncoｎcluｓioｎ,Ｃraiｇsuｇgestｓsoｍeguidelｉnesｏnhowａlteｒnatｉveｔeｎdersaｎdｔendersinvolvingdesiｇnproｐosalｓmightbetakenｌegitiｍatｅlybytheｏwneｒｓｏａstoaｖｏidoｒmｉniｍiｓｅthelikelihｏodoftheclientsplacingthemseｌｖesatｒiskoflitigatiｏnｄueｔoaｂreachｏfｔhecoｎtraｃtuａlobｌigationｓａrisingoｕtofthｅ‘ｔendｅriｎgｃontrａct’.Ｔheyａreｓpｅciｆiedasfｏlｌows.·Underｔhe‘ｔenderiｎgcoｎtｒact’theowneｒisobliｇedtｏtｒeatalｌtｅndeｒｓeｑｕａllyaｎdfairｌy.Allconｆｏｒmｉｎｇtendersmｕsttheｒeforebｅｃoｎｓiｄerｅd.·Aneffectiｖｅ‘privilegeｃlaｕse’ｗhichsaｙssoｍethingｌike“anｙtｅnderwｉllnotneｃessariｌybeａcｃepteｄ”wilｌnorｍａllyｐrｅventanoｗneｒbｅcｏmiｎgobliｇeｄｔｏaｃceptａnytenｄｅｒ.Alｌtｅndeｒsmaythereforebｅproperlyrｅjeｃted．Oｎtheotherhａnd，atermtothｅｅffecttｈatacontractwillbeａｗardｅdtothｅlｏwest,orｈiｇhesｔ,ｂｉdderisenforceablｅ.Thｉｓｉmpｌｉｅsｔｈatanownercanｎotuｓethｅ‘privilｅgeｃlaｕse’asａｎexcｕseｆｏrｄeviatingfromtheｃoｎtractevａｌuationandawａrdcriteriaｓｅtdowninthｅｔｅndｅrinvitatiｏnordocumｅnts.Oｒ,pｕtiｔanotheｒｗａy,the‘pｒivｉlegecｌause’doｅｓnotalloｗｔｈeowneｒto：(i)choosecoｍｐaｒatｉｖｅlyａmｏngthｅtｅnｄerersbasedoncriterｉaｔhaｔｈasnotbeenｄｉsｃloｓｅdtoｔｈｅｔendｅrers；or（ｉi)toawａrdｔoanotheｒｔenｄｅrerorａnotherpｅrsonｓomethｉｎｇotheｒtｈanthｅｍａiｎｃontｒact．·Ｉtwoｕldbeabｒeａchofthetenderingobligaｔioｎｏfeｑualanｄfａｉrｔreａtｍentfortheownerｔｏnegotｉａtewithｏｎetendeｒerｏnterｍｓwhicｈdonotappｌyｔootherteｎdeｒers.·Allteｎderersareeｎtitledtoｋnowｔｈebａｓiｓonwｈiｃhｔenderswillｂeevａluaｔedandonwｈiｃｈaｃonｔraｃｔ-aｗarｄｄeｃisionwｉllｂemade.·Ｉfinｎovaｔiｏnfｒomtｅnderｅrsｉsｒequｉｒeｄ，anownerｍusｔｅxpressｌycrｅatetherightforateｎdｅrertosubmiｔａnaｌteｒnatiｖetｅndｅr．Iftherｉghttheｎeｘｉstｓ,theｏwｎeｒｉsobligedtoconｓiderｓucｈproposals.Tenderｅrｓmｕstbｅinformedofcritｅrｉａfｏrevａlｕationofｓｕchalternaｔiveproｐosals.·Tｅndｅrconditioｎsmｕｓtdefiｎetｈｅｓｃｏpeｏfaｌtｅｒnativeｔｅｎdeｒs．Tｈａtscoｐｅmusｔｂeｎoｔtｏotightｓｏaｓtorestｒictｉnnoｖatioｎ,butnotｔoowidesｏastoｒeｓulｔinaｐroposaｌforaschemequitedifｆereｎttoｔheoｎｅｏｒigiｎａｌlｙteｎderedfｏｒ.·Tｅndeｒconditionｓforprｏjｅｃtｓｉnｖolvingdeｓｉｇnmuｓｔｉncluｄecriterｉaforｅvalｕａtingｔhatdesign．Ｔhecriteriaｍｕstｂemadｅknoｗｎtoaｌlｔenderｅｒs．·Iｔisａbreachoｆtｈe‘tenｄerｉngｃｏnｔrａｃt’fortheoｗnerｔoaｗardacoｎtracttｏateｎdeｒerwhooｆｆeｒssomｅｔｈｉngdｉfｆereｎtｔoｗhａtｗasａskedfoｒiｎtheinvｉtatiｏntｏｔenｄer.Furtheｒmｏre，Jｏｈnｓtoneａdｄｓ·Invitａtｉondｏcｕmeｎtｓhouldbeaccessibletoａｌlpoｔｅｎtialbiｄdｅrs.Ｔheyshoｕldbeeｘpressｅｄinｒeaｄｉlyundersｔoodｔerms.·Ｉｔｉｓeasieｒtｏfoｒmuｌateａｐpｒｏpｒiateselectioncｒｉteriaｗhｅｎｔheｐｒojecｔspeciｆicａtｉonsaｒedeｖｅlopedfirst．Ｃｌｅarsｐeciｆicatioｎsａndseｌｅctiｏncritｅriaaｓsiｓtpossｉbleｃｏntｒactorstoformulaｔeｂidｓapprｏpriatelｙ.·Apolicyinreｌatｉｏntonon-conformingbｉdsshouldbｅforｍulatedaｎｄdｏcuｍenｔｅdinthｅinviｔatｉｏｎｄoｃumeｎｔation.·Ofｔｅnａｓsｅｓsmｅｎtoｆbidswillｉnｖolvｅanuｍberoｆaｓseｓsｍentpａnels.Iｎthissitｕatiｏｎ,tｈｅreshouｌｄbeasｅｐａrationｏfassessｍenｔpaneｌs.Ｆoreｘamｐle,apａｎelofexperｔsmayrｅｖiewfiｎaｎｃialvｉabilitywhｉｌstanｏtherwillloｏｋａtthosesamebｉｄsfromadｅsignperｓpｅctｉｖe.Asｓｅｓsmｅｎtｐanｅlswouldｃommoｎlｙｂeqｕarantinedthroughｔｈｅevａlｕaｔioｎperｉod.SUMMARYTｈispaperhｉghlightstheprｏｂlｅmsｗiｔhcompetｉtiｖeteｎderｉnｇinｒｅlatioｎtocontractｏr-ledinｎｏvatiｏn.Intｈetｒaｄitiｏnalmｅｔhｏd,ｃoｎtractoｒ-lediｎnoｖatｉoｎｍａybeencｏｕragｅdａtthetｅｎｄerｉｎｇsｔaｇe.However,ｔoｅnableａccepｔanceｂytｈｅowner,cｒiteｒiaｆorevａluａｔｉonoｆａndthｅscoｐeoｆalterｎａtivｅtenｄersmuｓｔｂeclｅarｌｙdeｆinedｉnthetendｅrｄｏcument．Byｔｈｅsamｅtoｋｅn,ｔeｎdeｒcｏnditｉonｓforｐrojectsｉnvolvinｇｄesｉgnmｕsｔincludeｃriteｒiaforeｖaluａtｉnｇtｈａtｄｅsignt.Guidａnceｈasbeenoutｌiｎedoｆｈｏwｔoreｄucｅｔheｒｉskｏｆoｗnerfallingｉntｏａbreaｃhofthe‘tenderingcontｒaｃｔ’intheｃｏmpeｔitivｅtｅｎderingprｏcesswhenitiｎvolｖesａltｅｒnatiｖeteｎdｅｒｓｏrdeｓignproｐosalｓ．Ｏneoｆthealｔeｒnativｅｃontractorsｅｌectｉoｎmｅthodsｉdenｔifiedhａsbeenbｒieflydesｃribｅd.中文译文：招标协议中业主有机会鼓励承包商主导的创新的意义摘要在建设工程协议招标过程中,投标人有机会建议替代性创新方案。聪明人会积极运用这种机会,同样,承包商会运用他们的专业知识建立竞争优势。招投标双方都会极大的收益于这种方式。但是最近习惯法的发展对业主无诉讼风险的寻求替代性投标方案的能力提出了质疑。这种习惯法已结识到所谓“招标协议”或“过程协议”的存在。由于招标过程本质上是一种价格竞争,招标协议概念的应用很也许严重克制替代投标的机会。本文重要根据文献编制而成,重要目的是突出竞争性投标过程中承包商主导的创新及探索方式问题。通过这种方式,业主可以发展允许和鼓励创新的采购程序。竞争性投标问题传统招标过程目的是针对特定产品产生直接竞争价格。评标也许只限于价格，仅建立一种制度。即价格是唯一的标准。但是当各竞标价和技术含量相同时就不同了。虽然协议期像常数同样是固定的，但业主往往鼓励投标者提交二次标书。二次标书中为某一不同的协议期提出替代报价。投标者将通过改善投标方案、寻找最佳合约期、调整投标报价来达成业重规定。每个投标者都会努力寻找新的组织方案,在建议的范围内达成建导致本最低、利润最高。但是这一过程仅限于部分业主的设计。这样一来创新性中标者的范围就非常有限了。评价替代性投标时，业主面临着公平、公正对待所有投标者的义务。假如某个投标被选为替代性投标，那么在本来的招标邀请中这是一个不符合条件的标书,这样所有的投标者又怎么也许被公平、公正的对待呢?任何超过允许的价格、工期范围的投标都必须从业主考虑的范围内取消,由于他们不符合招标邀请的规定。因此，传统招标限制、阻止甚至不允许承包商主导的创新。Soｎｇｇｅｒ和Ibbs认为,建设过程中设计－建造采购方法的使用能鼓励创新。这种采购方法在整个建造过程中给承包商施加了压力。它不同于传统方法。传统方法必须可以在竞争的基础上评估设计、生产能力、工期、价格。这是不容易的。在招标环境中，竞争性设计是不易评估的。在竞争赢家时,主观性似乎取代了客观性。投标过程中明显的完整性已丢失。除非竞争设计的评估一开始就建立了明确的准则,这也意味着招标程序准则必须像鼓励承包商主导的创新那样设计。Sonｇｇｅr和Ibbs提到这一方面时断言：公共机构的一大焦急是如何在允许创新的同时保持对项目特定设计方面的控制。在设计方面拟定一种合适的创新与控制,让潜在的设计-建造投标者充足了解这种抱负的平衡,这给公共部门机构提出了一个重大挑战。招标协议与传统招标相关的法律的发展把“招标邀请”或“招标规定”看作但是是一次邀请,只是业主准备做一些优先于要约的事情的一个暗示。换句话说，一次邀请并不是与任何被邀请的投标人签订协议的建议,仅仅是协商的第一步。这种协商也许会导致协议的签订,也也许不会。当各投标人按规定格式提交了标书,这相称于一个可以被当作协议的要约。假如这个要约得到明确的接受,那么在业主和中标者之间就会产生合约性的义务。最近，现代观点将这一理论推翻。这里存在有关招标协议出现的所谓“双方协议”的分析。招标邀请现在在某些情况下被视为是提交合格标书后签订协议的要约。业主向每个投标者提供如下措辞:“假如你提交符合规定的投标书回应我的邀请，我会考虑是否中标……”投标者在这一点上没有任何义务。但是假如提交了一份合格的标书,那么业主和投标者之间就形成了一份协议。这种协议被描述为“投标协议”或“前期协议”或“过程协议”。这种协议完全不同于最终与中标者签订的主协议。合约性的义