问题 问答题

某大型计算机政府采购项目,经批准采用询价方式采购。采购人按照以下程序组织了本次采购:
(1)成立了4人询价小组,其中采购人代表1人,为行政处处长;从财政部门组建的政府采购评审专家库中随机抽取评审专家3人。
(2)采购人编制了询价采购文件,并确定了采购项目评定成交标准。
(3)在符合资格条件的供应商中,询价小组邀请了A、B两家供应商参加报价。
(4)向供应商A、B发售询价文件。
(5)组织公开竞价,询价小组唱出供应商A、B的首次报价分别为220万元和230万元;询价小组要求A、B现场再次竞价,最终A、B的报价分别为206万元和214万元。
(6)询价小组以210万元为评审基准价,对供应商的报价及其他文件进行了综合打分,并按得分由高到低的排序依次推荐成交供应商。
(7)根据评审结果,两家供应商的产品和报价均符合要求,但供应商B得分最高,采购人依据高分优先的原则确定了供应商B为成交供应商。
(8)采购人与成交供应商签订合同。
逐一指出该项目采购过程中的不妥之处,并分别说明理由。

答案

参考答案:该项目采购过程中的不妥之处及其理由具体如下:
(1)不妥之处:成立了4人询价小组。
理由:《政府采购法》第四十条规定,询价小组由采购人的代表和有关专家共3人以上的单数组成,其中专家的人数不得少于成员总数的2/3。
(2)不妥之处:询价小组邀请了A、B两家供应商参加报价。
理由:根据《政府采购法》第四十条,询价小组根据采购需求,从符合相应资格条件的供应商名单中确定不少于3家的供应商,并向其发出询价通知书让其报价。
(3)不妥之处:询价小组要求A、B现场再次竞价。
理由:《政府采购法》第四十条规定,询价小组要求被询价的供应商一次报出不得更改的价格。
(4)不妥之处:询价小组按供应商得分由高到低的排序依次推荐成交供应商。
理由:询价小组对供应商报价由低至高进行排序后向采购人推荐成交候选人。
(5)不妥之处:采购人依据高分优先的原则确定了供应商B为成交供应商。
理由:根据《政府采购法》第四十条,采购人根据符合采购需求、质量和服务相等且报价最低的原则确定成交供应商,并将结果通知所有被询价的未成交的供应商。

单项选择题
单项选择题

If phone calls and web pages can be beamed through the air to portable devices, then why not electrical power, too It is a question many consumers and device manufacturers have been asking themselves for some time. But to seasoned observers of the electronics industry, the promise of wireless recharging sounds depressingly familiar. In 2004 Splashpower, a British technology firm, was citing “very p” interest from consumer-electronics firms for its wireless charging pad. Based on the principle of electromagnetic induction (EMI) that Faraday had discovered in the 19th century, the company’s “Splashpad” contained a coil that generated a magnetic field when a current flowed through it. When a mobile device containing a corresponding coil was brought near the pad, the process was reversed as the magnetic field generated a current in the second coil, charging the device’ s battery without the use of wires. Unfortunately, although Faraday’s principles of electromagnetic induction have stood the test of time, Splashpower has not — it was declared bankrupt last year without having launched a single product.

Thanks to its simplicity .and measurability, electromagnetic induction is still the technology of choice among many of the remaining companies in the wireless-charging arena. But, as Splashpower found, turning the theory into profitable practice is not straightforward. But lately there have been some promising developments.

The first is the formation in December 2008 of the Wireless Power Consortium, a body dedicated to establishing a common standard for inductive wireless charging, and thus promoting its adoption. The new consortium’s members include big consumer-electronics firms, such as Philips and Sanyo, as well as Texas Instruments, a chipmaker.

Fierce competition between manufacturers of mobile devices is also accelerating the introduction of wireless charging. The star of this year’s Consumer Electronics Show held in Las Vegas was the Pre, a smart-phone from Palm. The Pre has an optional charging pad, called the Touchstone, which uses electromagnetic induction to charge the device wirelessly.

As wireless-charging equipment based on electromagnetic induction heads towards the market, a number of alternative technologies are also being developed. PowerBeam, a start-up based in Silicon Valley, uses lasers to beam power from one place to another.

It now seems to be a matter of when, rather than if, wireless charging enters the mainstream. And if those in the field do find themselves languishing in the disillusionment, they could take some encouragement from Faraday himself. He observed that “nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.” Not even a wirelessly rechargeable iPhone.

What’s the difference between the technology of Splashpower and that of PowerBeam()

A.Splashpower lies on the principle of EMI and PowerBeam doesn’t

B. Splashpower uses coils to cause EMI and PowerBeam uses lasers

C.Splashpower went bankrupt and PowerBeam grows prosperous

D. PowerBeam uses a special charging pad and Splashpower doesn’t