As a seasoned practitioner in the field of construction industry bidding and tendering, I have witnessed the ups and downs of the bidding market for foundation engineering. For a period of time, the principle of "lowest price wins" prevailed, and enterprises maliciously undercut prices in order to win bids, even engaging in "loss-making bidding." Low-price winning not only raises concerns about project quality but also disrupts market order. As the foundation of a building, foundation engineering—when subject to cut corners—can lead to settlement, tilting, and other problems that seriously threaten building safety.

    To reverse this situation, the state has stepped in to rectify it. The "Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Bidding and Tendering for Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects" encourages the adoption of the comprehensive evaluation method, incorporating technology, reputation, management, and other factors into bid evaluation standards; housing and urban-rural development departments are also working to improve the credit system, penalizing malicious low-price winning and dishonest behavior. These policies drive reform in bidding and tendering, reshape industry order, and support technological progress.

    In the early days of foundation engineering bidding, most projects adopted the "integration of evaluation and award" model, which was characterized by strict procedures and clear rules and, for a period of time, provided a solid institutional guarantee for bidding activities. Under the "integration of evaluation and award" system, the bid evaluation committee served as the core decision-making body, conducting a comprehensive review of each bidder's technical proposal, commercial proposal, and other documents in accordance with established evaluation standards and methods. After the review, the bid evaluation committee would submit a written bid evaluation report to the tenderee and recommend a list of winning candidates in order of score. Particularly in legally required bidding projects in which state-owned funds dominate, the tenderee was usually required to determine the first-ranked winning candidate as the winner. This mandatory provision greatly reduced the possibility of human intervention and ensured the standardization and transparency of the bidding process.

    However, with the development of the industry and the increasing complexity of projects, the limitations of the "integration of evaluation and award" model gradually became apparent. Because members of the bid evaluation committee were often assembled temporarily at the project bidding stage, the experts lacked in-depth understanding of the project's specific background, the tenderee's actual needs, and the special conditions at the construction site, causing evaluation results to become disconnected from the project's actual needs. A large company once participated in the bidding for a large residential project in a coastal area, where the local geological conditions were complex, with deep silty soil layers and frequent tidal effects. However, during the evaluation process, the evaluation experts failed to fully consider these special factors and placed excessive emphasis on bid prices and conventional technical proposal scoring, allowing an enterprise with a relatively conservative technical proposal but a lower bid to win. After the project was implemented, serious settlement problems occurred due to improper foundation treatment, which not only caused delays in the construction schedule but also significantly increased project costs, resulting in enormous economic losses. In addition, under the "integration of evaluation and award" model, the tenderee's autonomy was severely restricted. Once problems arose with the winning result, responsibility was vaguely defined, easily leading to buck-passing among the parties and affecting the smooth progress of the project.

    To address the drawbacks of the "integration of evaluation and award" model, the "separation of evaluation and award" system emerged. In 2012, Shenzhen took the lead nationwide in launching a pilot for the "separation of evaluation and award," a measure that came like timely rain and brought new hope to the bidding industry, which had fallen into development difficulties. The "separation of evaluation and award" system separates the two key links of bid evaluation and award determination. The bid evaluation committee is responsible for the technical review of bid documents, assessing bidders in terms of technical feasibility, reasonableness of construction plans, and other aspects, and ultimately recommending winning candidates without ranking them; the tenderee, meanwhile, establishes an award determination committee and independently determines the winner from among the candidates based on factors such as the project's actual needs, the bidders' overall strength, and their fit with the project.

    The initial pilot of the "separation of evaluation and award" faced many challenges and doubts. On the one hand, enterprises were unfamiliar with the rules and operating model of the new system and worried that they would find it difficult to grasp bidding strategies in the new competitive environment; on the other hand, tenderees also had concerns about how to exercise the award determination right, fearing disputes arising from non-standard award determination processes. To address these problems, pilot regions actively explored ways to gradually guide the market in adapting to the new system by formulating detailed operating guidelines and strengthening training for tenderees. The head of an enterprise that participated in bidding for one of Shenzhen's first batch of "separation of evaluation and award" pilot projects once shared that when the team first participated in a "separation of evaluation and award" project, it prepared bid documents entirely according to past experience under "integration of evaluation and award," and as a result failed at the award determination stage. After deeply studying the characteristics of the new system, the enterprise adjusted its strategy, paying more attention to communication with the tenderee during bidding and gaining an in-depth understanding of project needs, and ultimately succeeded in winning subsequent projects. This case fully reflects the profound impact of the "separation of evaluation and award" system on enterprises' bidding strategies and market competition models.

    With the success of the Shenzhen pilot, the "separation of evaluation and award" system was gradually promoted nationwide. To date, more than a dozen provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government have carried out pilot work on the "separation of evaluation and award." Drawing on Shenzhen's experience and combining it with local realities, various regions have optimized and innovated the "separation of evaluation and award" system. Beijing's "Administrative Measures for the 'Separation of Evaluation and Award' of Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects in Beijing (Trial)," implemented on a trial basis starting February 1, 2025, further clarifies the responsibilities and processes of each stage of bid evaluation and award determination and strengthens supervision and management of the award determination process. The measures stipulate that members of the award determination committee must conduct on-site inspections of bidders before determining the award, to understand the bidders' actual performance capabilities and project management levels and ensure the scientific and rational nature of the award determination results.

    In the process of promotion, the "separation of evaluation and award" system has also been continuously deepened and improved. Various regions have gradually recognized that merely separating bid evaluation from award determination cannot fully solve the problems existing in the bidding market and that a series of supporting regulatory measures and safeguard mechanisms are also needed. For example, some regions have established a system of full-process recording and traceability for the award determination process, requiring the award determination committee to keep detailed records of the decision-making process to ensure that it is traceable and verifiable; at the same time, supervision of the tenderee's award determination power has been strengthened to prevent abuse of power and corruption. The implementation of these measures enables the "separation of evaluation and award" system to effectively safeguard the fairness and justice of the bidding market while giving play to the advantages of the tenderee's autonomy.

    From the traditional "integration of evaluation and award" to the innovative "separation of evaluation and award," every reform of the bidding method for foundation engineering profoundly affects the development trajectory of the industry. From the traditional "integration of evaluation and award" to the innovative "separation of evaluation and award," every reform of the bidding method for foundation engineering profoundly affects the development trajectory of the industry.      In this wave of rapid industry iteration, the Geotechnical Advanced Management Program (GMBA) of the Foundation College has emerged as the times require, providing precise empowerment for practitioners. The college keeps a close eye on the development needs of the construction industry, focuses on cultivating professional composite talents who understand both technology and management, and, in response to the challenges brought by industrial optimization and upgrading and technological innovation, has carefully created a curriculum system covering analysis of foundation engineering case studies, in-depth interpretation of standards and specifications, discussion of cutting-edge innovative technologies, application practices of digital geotechnics and green low-carbon geotechnics, and sharing of management experience by leading enterprises in the industry. Here, students can not only consolidate their professional foundations but also grasp industry trends, help their career development reach new heights, and become a core force driving high-quality development in the field of foundation engineering.

    In the next article, we will continue to explore other innovative measures in bidding mechanisms across various regions, as well as the close connection between changes in bidding methods and the development of pile foundation engineering technology. Stay tuned! (Personal views, for reference only)