招投标外文文献
编辑整理：
尊敬的读者朋友们：
这里是精品文档编辑中心，本文档内容是由我和我的同事精心编辑整理后发布的，发布之前我们对文中内容进行仔细校对，但是难免会有疏漏的地方，但是任然希望（招投标外文文献）的内容能够给您的工作和学习带来便利。同时也真诚的希望收到您的建议和反馈，这将是我们进步的源泉，前进的动力。
拨动心弦
本文可编辑可修改，如果觉得对您有帮助请收藏以便随时查阅，最后祝您生活愉快 业绩进步，以下为招投标外文文献的全部内容。
外文文献：
The Significance of the Tendering Contract on The Opportunities for Clients to Encourage Contractor—led Innovation
豌豆粉ABSTRACT
During the tendering process for most major construction contracts there is the opportunity for bidders to suggest alternative innovative solutions. Clearly clients are kee古代对太子的尊称
就是这样n to take advantage of the opportunities, and equally contractors want to u their experti to establish competitive advantage. Both parties may very well benefit from the encouragement of such innovation and the availability of cheaper methods of construction than have been contemplated by the tendering authority.
However recent developments in common law have raid doubts about the ability of owners to ek alternative tenders without placing themlves at risk of litigation. This common law has recognid the existence of the so—called ‘tendering contract’ or ‘process contract'. Since the tendering process is inherently price competitive， the application of the tendering contract concept is likely to verely inhibit the opportunity for alternative tenders。
This paper is primarily bad on the literature review. The aim of this paper is to highlight the problems with the competitive tendering process in relation to contractor—led innovation and explore ways in which owners can develop procurement procedures that will allow and encourage innovation from contractors。
然彩
PROBLEMS WITH COMPETITIVE TENDERING
The traditional tendering process was designed to produce direct price competition for a specified product. Evaluation of tenders could only be confined to price alone by creating a system in which price is the only criterion that could vary while design and technical content are the same for each competing tender。 Albeit the contract period is stipulated as constant, owners often encourage tenderers to submit a cond tender which offers an alternative price for an alternative time performance. Tenderers would achieve this by reworking their tender programme， finding the optimum contract period， and adjusting the tender price accordingly. Each tenderer would compete to find novel ways of organising the work method that would allow not only the minimum construction cost but also maximum profit margin within the price propod。 However， this process is always confined by the boundary of the owner’s design。 In this way, the successful tenderer’s scope to be innovative is very limited .
When evaluating alternative tenders， the owner is confronted with the duty of equal tr
eatment and fairness to all tenderers. If one is to be preferred on an alternative tender， which is not a conforming tender in terms of the original invitation, how can all tenderers be treated equally and fairly？ Any individualism exhibited on the part of a tenderer outside the permitted scope of price and time must disqualify that tender from the owner’s consideration becau it does not conform to the invitation. Therefore， the traditional tendering process prevents， restricts or even discourages contractor—led innovation .
Songer and Ibbs believed that the u of design—and-build procurement method would encourage innovation in the building process。 This procurement method impos single point responsibility on contractor for the complete building and its tendering processdiffer from that of the traditional procurement method in that it must be capable of evaluating design as well as production capability, time and price, all on a competitive basis. This is not easy。 Competitive design is not easy to evaluate in the context of tendering。 The objectivity appears to be replaced by subjectivity in picking the winner, and the apparent integrity of the bidding process is lost, unless very clear criteria are established at the outt for evaluation of competing designs. This also means to say that the tender proces
s rules must be designed as such that itencourages contractor—led innovation, yet at the same time places some limit on the scope for such innovation。 The limits must be such that the project delivered is still the project for which tenders were invited. Songer and Ibbs, with respect to this aspect， asrted that one concern of public agencies is how to allow for innovation while maintaining appropriate control of certain design aspects of the project. Determining an appropriate balance of innovation and control in design and adequately communicating the desired balance to potential design—and-build tenderers provides a significant challenge to public ctor agencies。
THE ‘TENDERING CONTRACT’
血鳖 Developments in the law relating to tenders traditionally treated an ‘invitation to tender’ or a ‘request for tenders’ as no more than an invitation to treat, an indication that the owner was ready to do business – something prior to and short of an offer . In other words， an invitation to treat was not an offer to make a contract with any person who might act on the invitation， but merely a first step in negotiation which may， or may not,派邦奴
lead to a contract。 When each tenderer submitted its tender in the prescribed form, it amounted to an offer which could be regarded as an offer to makea contract。 If the offer met with unequivocal acceptance， contractual obligation aro between the owner and the successful tenderer 。
Recently， the modern view turns this theory upside down. There exists what is known as the ‘two contract’ analysis involving the emergence of the ‘tendering contract’. The invitation to tender is now in some circumstances to be treated as an offer to make a contract which a tenderer accepts when it submits a conforming tender。 The owner makes an offer to each tenderer which might be worded as follows： 人闲桂花落
