论文部分内容阅读
案情介绍某代理机构组织电梯项目政府采购招标。招标文件中明确规定,投标文件必须加盖单位公章。而投标人S公司盖的是公司合同专用章,但负责资格审查的公证处人员审查时未发现这一问题。评标结果,S公司以1500万元中标。招标活动结束后,供应商T公司质疑中标人公章不符合招标文件要求。随后,政府采购监管部门在调查中发现,在S公司密封的投标文件中有一份授权委托书,明确该章为公司授权,合法有效,委托书上盖的是单位公章。对本案的处理,就出现了两种不同的意见:第一
Case introduction An agency organization elevator project government procurement bidding. Bidding documents clearly stipulated that the tender documents must be stamped with official seal. The bidder S company is covered by the company contract seal, but the notary office responsible for the qualification review did not find this issue. Bid evaluation results, S company to 15 million yuan bid. After the bidding activity, the supplier T company questioned the bid winner’s seal does not meet the requirements of the tender documents. Subsequently, the government procurement regulatory authorities found in the investigation, the company sealed a sealed letter of attorney in the S, a clear chapter for the company authorized, legal and effective, power of attorney is covered by the official seal. Two different opinions emerged on the handling of the case: first