The fact that unit A (procuring entity) uses digital certificates of unit B to invite bid that leads to the name of the soliciting entity in E-TBMT is different from the name of the soliciting entity in the E-Bidding Documents. bid solicitor that is not the contractor's fault. Unit Mr. Dang The Truong (in Hanoi) is participating in consulting bidding for bidding packages in the field of consulting and construction. In the process of implementing the unit, there are some problems as follows: Scenario 1:
The investor of project X is the banking transaction office (unit A) directly under the bank branch (unit B, who is also the investment decider). In the bidding documents for bidding package Y of project X issued, it is specified that the bid solicitor is unit A.
However, when disclosing information about the project X contractor selection plan and the invitation to bid for package Y, the investor (unit A) has used unit B's digital certificate to post information. Therefore, the name of the bid solicitor on the bidding network is Unit B (not in accordance with the name of the soliciting entity in the issued bidding dossier, which is Unit A).
- Bidder C, when participating in the package Y, has made a bid security and sent to the soliciting entity / beneficiary is unit B. So, is contractor C's bid guarantee valid?
- Bidder D, when participating in a bidding package, has his bid sent to the bid solicitor as unit B. So, is the bid form valid?
Due to errors in the process of posting and distributing bidding documents, the bid security value of package X posted on the bidding network is defined as VND Y1, the value of the bid security in the bidding documents. issue is Y2 dong. When evaluating bids, contractor A has a bid security with the value of VND Y1, contractor B has a bid security with the value of VND Y2.
- In case Y1