Bidding result evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The embodiment of the invention provides a bid winning result evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and a storage medium, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining a bid winning result of a to-be-evaluated bid invitation project, the bid winning result comprising a current bid winning price and a current bid winning user; determining a price calculation rule of the to-be-evaluated bid invitation project according to the current bid winning price to obtain a first pricing rule; obtaining an actual bid-winning price of the historical bid invitation project, and determining a price calculation rule of the historical bid invitation project according to the actual bid-winning price of the historical bid invitation project to obtain a second pricing rule; evaluating the rationality of the current bid-winning price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result; obtaining a factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current bid-winning user, and evaluating the credit degree of the current bid-winning user according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result; and determining a bid winning evaluation result of the to-be-evaluated bid invitation project based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The embodiments of the present invention relate to the field of computer technology, and in particular to a bid winning result evaluation method, device, electronic device and storage medium. Background Art

[0002] In modern project management and procurement, bidding is a common and important way to select the best contractor or supplier from multiple bidders. The bidding process usually includes publishing bidding information, bidders submitting bids, the bid evaluation committee reviewing the bids, selecting the winning bidders and finally determining the winning bidder.

[0003] In order to ensure that the bid results are reasonable and reliable, it is usually necessary to review the bid results after obtaining them. At present, the review of bid results mainly relies on manual work. Manual review of bid results relies on personnel experience, has low efficiency, high cost, and is easily interfered by subjective factors. Summary of the invention

[0004] The embodiments of the present invention provide a bid winning result evaluation method, device, electronic device and storage medium, which can objectively and uniformly evaluate the bid winning result, improve the bid winning result evaluation efficiency and reduce the evaluation cost.

[0005] In a first aspect, a method for evaluating a bid winning result provided by an embodiment of the present invention includes:

[0006] Obtain the winning bid result of the bidding project to be evaluated, the winning bid result including the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder;

[0007] Determine the price calculation rule of the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain a first pricing rule;

[0008] Acquire the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain the second pricing rule;

[0009] Evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result;

[0010] Obtaining the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result;

[0011] The winning bid evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated is determined based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

[0012] Optionally, determining the price calculation rule of the tender project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain the first pricing rule includes: determining the influence coefficients of at least two pricing factors according to the current winning bid price and the subject of the tender project to be evaluated to obtain a first influence coefficient sequence;

[0013] Determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain a second pricing rule, including: determine the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject matter of the historical bidding project to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence.

[0014] Optionally, there are multiple historical bidding projects, and determining the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject matter of the historical bidding projects to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence includes:

[0015] Determine the weight of the corresponding historical bidding project according to the time when each of the historical bidding projects was generated;

[0016] Determine the influence coefficient of each of the historical bidding projects on the at least two pricing factors according to the subject matter and the actual winning bid price of each of the historical bidding projects, and obtain an influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding projects;

[0017] The second influence coefficient sequence is determined according to the influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding items and the weight of each of the historical bidding items.

[0018] Optionally, the evaluating the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result includes:

[0019] Calculating the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence;

[0020] The price evaluation result is determined according to the similarity.

[0021] Optionally, evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result includes:

[0022] Obtaining the weights of the various credit evaluation factors;

[0023] The credit level of the current successful bidder is evaluated according to the factor values ​​and weights of the various credit evaluation factors to obtain the user evaluation result.

[0024] Optionally, obtaining the weight of each credit evaluation factor includes:

[0025] Establishing a credit evaluation system, the credit evaluation system includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer, the credit evaluation target of the target layer is the credit level of the sample user in the sample user group, the criterion layer includes various credit evaluation indicators that affect the credit evaluation target, and the scheme layer includes various credit evaluation factors that affect the credit evaluation target;

[0026] The weights of the various credit evaluation factors are calculated according to the credit evaluation system.

[0027] Optionally, the calculating the weight of each credit evaluation factor according to the credit evaluation system includes:

[0028] Establishing a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level, and establishing a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors at the solution level;

[0029] Calculate the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, and calculate the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix;

[0030] The weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target is determined based on the weight of the credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer, thereby obtaining the weight of each credit evaluation factor.

[0031] Optionally, the step of establishing a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer includes:

[0032] Determining the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target, and establishing the first pairwise comparison matrix according to the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target;

[0033] The step of establishing a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer includes:

[0034] Determine the importance scale of the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer, and establish the second pairwise comparison matrix according to the importance scale of the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer.

[0035] Optionally, the calculating, according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target includes:

[0036] Normalizing the data in the first pairwise comparison matrix and then performing row summation, normalizing the data obtained by the row summation and then multiplying it with the first pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target;

[0037] The step of calculating the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix includes:

[0038] The data in the second pairwise comparison matrix is ​​normalized and then row summed. The data obtained by row summing is normalized and then multiplied with the second pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer.

[0039] Optionally, determining the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the weight of the credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer includes:

[0040] The weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target is multiplied and summed with the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target.

[0041] In the embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation of the winning bid price and the winning bidder is quickly completed through an automated system and algorithm, which significantly improves the review efficiency, reduces the time and workload of manual operation, reduces the reliance on manual review, and reduces the cost of human resources, especially when dealing with a large number of bidding projects. The cost advantage is more obvious. The evaluation process is based on fixed calculation rules and historical data, which avoids unfair factors caused by subjective judgment and ensures the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation results. The evaluation process is transparent, and all steps and data are traceable, which is convenient for management and review, ensuring the openness, fairness and transparency of the bidding process. By analyzing a large amount of historical data, data-driven decision support is provided, the scientificity and accuracy of the review are improved, and human errors are reduced. Increase the credit evaluation of the winning bidder, reduce the project risks caused by unreliable suppliers, and improve the success rate and reliability of bidding projects.

[0042] In a second aspect, an embodiment of the present invention provides a bid winning result evaluation device, comprising:

[0043] An acquisition module is used to acquire the winning bid result of the bidding project to be evaluated, wherein the winning bid result includes the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder;

[0044] A first determining module, configured to determine a price calculation rule for the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price, to obtain a first pricing rule;

[0045] A second determination module is used to obtain the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain a second pricing rule;

[0046] A price evaluation module, used to evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result;

[0047] A user evaluation module, used to obtain the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluate the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result;

[0048] A comprehensive evaluation module is used to determine the winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

[0049] In a third aspect, an electronic device provided by an embodiment of the present invention includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the program, a method for evaluating the winning bid result as in any embodiment of the present invention is implemented.

[0050] In a fourth aspect, an embodiment of the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and when the program is executed by a processor, a method for evaluating the winning bid results as in any embodiment of the present invention is implemented.

[0051] The description of the second, third and fourth aspects of the embodiments of the present invention can refer to the detailed description of the first aspect; and the beneficial effects of the description of the second, third and fourth aspects can refer to the beneficial effects analysis of the first aspect, which will not be repeated here. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0052] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solution of the present invention, the drawings required for use in the embodiments are briefly introduced below. It should be understood that the following drawings only show certain embodiments of the present invention and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope. For ordinary technicians in this field, other related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0053] Figure 1 It is a flowchart of a bid winning result evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0054] Figure 2It is a flow chart of a method for evaluating a winning bid price provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0055] Figure 3a It is a flowchart of a method for evaluating a successful bidder provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0056] Figure 3b is a structural example diagram of a credit evaluation system provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0057] Figure 4 It is a structural schematic diagram of a bid winning price evaluation device provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0058] Figure 5 It is a structural schematic diagram of an electronic device provided by an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0059] In order to enable those skilled in the art to better understand the scheme of the present invention, the technical scheme in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work should fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0060] It should be noted that the terms "first", "second", etc. in the specification and claims of the present invention and the above-mentioned drawings are used to distinguish similar objects, and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that the data used in this way can be interchanged where appropriate, so that the embodiments of the present invention described herein can be implemented in an order other than those illustrated or described herein. In addition, the terms "including" and "having" and any variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusions, for example, a process, method, system, product or device that includes a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units that are clearly listed, but may include other steps or units that are not clearly listed or inherent to these processes, methods, products or devices.

[0061] Figure 1It is a flow chart of the bid winning result evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present invention. The bid winning result evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present invention can be applied to the scenario where after obtaining the bid winning results of a batch of bidding projects, it is necessary to review and check the batch winning results. The bid winning result evaluation method can be executed by the bid winning result evaluation device provided in an embodiment of the present invention, and the device can be implemented in software and / or hardware. In a specific embodiment, the device can be integrated in an electronic device, and the electronic device can be a personal computer, a computer, a server, etc. The following embodiment is described by taking the example of integrating the bid winning result evaluation device in an electronic device, refer to Figure 1 The bid winning result evaluation method of this embodiment may include the following steps:

[0062] Step 101, obtaining the winning result of the bidding project to be evaluated, the winning result including the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder.

[0063] The bidding projects to be evaluated may be projects that have obtained preliminary winning results, such as construction projects, procurement projects, and information technology projects. Construction projects include house construction and infrastructure construction, procurement projects include goods procurement, material procurement, and service procurement, and information technology projects include software system development and data platform construction. The bidding projects to be evaluated may include one or more bidding projects, and the winning results of the bidding projects to be evaluated can be obtained from the bidding management platform.

[0064] The current winning bid price refers to the bid price proposed and selected by the bidder in the bidding for the bidding project to be evaluated. The current winning bidder refers to the bidder selected in the bid evaluation process, who will be responsible for executing the project. For example, the bidding project to be evaluated is a municipal road construction bidding, and there are several companies participating in the bidding. After the public bidding, the bid evaluation committee selected Company X as the winning bidder based on the pre-set scoring criteria. Company X's bid price is Y billion yuan, which is the total price proposed by Company X to complete the entire municipal road construction project. This total price is the current winning bid price, and Company X is the current winning bidder.

[0065] Step 102, determining the price calculation rule of the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price, and obtaining the first pricing rule.

[0066] That is, using the current winning bid price as a reference, find a set of price calculation rules adopted by the current winning bidder for the tender project to be evaluated. Through this rule, it is possible to evaluate whether the bid of the current winning bidder is reasonable. This pricing rule will depend on the pricing factors and their influence coefficients of the tender project to be evaluated. Pricing factors refer to various specific factors that affect costs and prices when calculating project costs and quotations. Pricing factors can be divided into multiple categories, mainly including the physical characteristics of the project, task cycle, environmental conditions, technical requirements, labor requirements, etc. Each factor may have an impact on the cost and pricing of the project. Pricing factors are also different in different types of projects. The influence coefficient is a numerical value used to quantify the influence of a specific pricing factor on the overall cost or quotation of the project. Each pricing factor has a different degree of influence on the total cost, and the influence coefficient helps determine the weight or importance of these factors, making the calculation and evaluation more accurate and systematic. In project cost estimation and quotation, the influence coefficient is a numerical value used to indicate the contribution or influence of a single pricing factor on the total cost.

[0067] Specifically, the pricing factors of the tender project to be evaluated can be identified first. For road construction projects, these pricing factors may include road length, width, construction period, material cost, construction difficulty, etc. Then, the influence coefficients of each pricing factor are calculated inversely based on the current winning bid price and the specific values ​​of these pricing factors in the tender project to be evaluated, and finally the first pricing rule is determined based on these pricing factors and the corresponding influence coefficients. The first pricing rule is the price calculation rule adopted by the current winning bidder for the tender project to be evaluated.

[0068] Specifically, the specific values ​​of each pricing factor of the tender project to be evaluated and the current winning bid price can be used as input data, and the input data can be input into the data processing model or the price inversion system. The output of the model or system is the influence coefficient of each pricing factor. The price prediction system corresponding to the price inversion system is used to predict the cost or quotation of the project. The specific values ​​of each pricing factor of a project and the corresponding influence coefficients of each pricing factor are input into the price prediction system, and the price prediction system can output the predicted cost or quotation of the project.

[0069] For example, the bidding project to be evaluated is a road construction project. The pricing factors of the road construction project include volume, construction period and construction difficulty. According to the current winning bid price of the road construction project, the specific volume, specific construction period and specific construction difficulty of the road construction project, it is calculated that the influence coefficients used by the current winning bidder when quoting for the road construction project are as follows: the influence coefficient of volume (for example, per kilometer) is 800, that is, 8 million yuan per kilometer, the influence coefficient of construction period is 500, that is, 5 million yuan per month, and the influence coefficient of construction difficulty is 1.15, that is, 1.15 per construction difficulty. The pricing rules for the road construction project are 8 million yuan / kilometer, 5 million yuan / month, and 1.15 / construction difficulty.

[0070] Step 103, obtaining the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determining the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, to obtain the second pricing rule.

[0071] A historical bidding project is a bidding project that is the same, similar or related to the bidding project to be evaluated, and is a reviewed bidding project. There can be one or more historical bidding projects, and the historical bidding projects can be considered as reference bidding projects when reviewing the bidding project to be evaluated. For example, the bidding project to be evaluated is a road construction project, and the historical bidding project can be another road construction project.

[0072] The second pricing rule is the price calculation rule used by the winning bidder of the historical bidding project when bidding for the historical bidding project. The method of determining the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project based on the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project can be the same or similar to the method of determining the price calculation rule of the bidding project to be evaluated based on the current winning bid price, and will not be repeated here.

[0073] Step 104, evaluating the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result.

[0074] The price evaluation results may include pass or fail. The difference or similarity between the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule can be compared. The greater the difference or the lower the similarity, the more unreasonable or abnormal the pricing rule of the tender project to be evaluated is, and the price evaluation result may be fail.

[0075] Specifically, a standard bidding project can be found, and the quotations of the standard bidding project under the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule can be calculated respectively to obtain two quotations, and the difference between the two quotations can be calculated. If the difference between the two quotations exceeds the preset difference threshold, it is considered that the pricing rules of the bidding project to be evaluated are unreasonable, and the price evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated may not pass.

[0076] Alternatively, the first vector may be constructed according to the first pricing rule, and the second vector may be constructed according to the second pricing rule, and the similarity between the two vectors may be calculated. If the similarity is lower than a preset similarity threshold, it is considered that the pricing rules of the tender project to be evaluated are unreasonable, and the price evaluation result of the tender project to be evaluated may not pass.

[0077] Step 105, obtaining the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result.

[0078] The user evaluation results may include pass or fail. Credit evaluation factors are reference factors used to evaluate the user's credit level. In the field of bidding, credit evaluation factors may include but are not limited to total liabilities, total assets, historical project completion rate, contract default rate, complaint rate, etc. The current winning bidder may be scored based on the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor of the current winning bidder. If the score is lower than the preset score, the user evaluation result is not passed. Specifically, each credit evaluation factor of the current winning bidder may be scored based on the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor of the current winning bidder, and the average of the scores of each credit evaluation factor is calculated after scoring, and the user evaluation result is determined based on the average.

[0079] For example, the current winning bidder has less total liabilities, with a total liabilities score of 90; more total assets, with a total assets score of 85; a good historical project completion rate, with a historical project completion rate score of 82; a low contract default rate, with a contract default rate score of 88; a low complaint rate, with a complaint rate score of 95, and the current winning bidder's credit score may be 88. If the preset score is 80 points, and the current winning bidder's credit score is 88, which exceeds the preset score, the current winning bidder's user evaluation result is passed.

[0080] Step 106: Determine the bid winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

[0081] Specifically, when both the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result are passed, the winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated can be determined as passed, so as to reduce the implementation risk of the project and improve the reliability of the project implementation.

[0082] In this embodiment, the evaluation of the winning bid price and the winning bidder is completed quickly through an automated system and algorithm, which significantly improves the review efficiency, reduces the time and workload of manual operation, reduces the reliance on manual review, and reduces the cost of human resources, especially when dealing with a large number of bidding projects. The cost advantage is more obvious. The evaluation process is based on fixed calculation rules and historical data, which avoids unfair factors caused by subjective judgment and ensures the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation results. The evaluation process is transparent, and all steps and data are traceable, which is convenient for management and review, ensuring the openness, fairness and transparency of the bidding process. By analyzing a large amount of historical data, data-driven decision support is provided, the scientificity and accuracy of the review are improved, and human errors are reduced. Increase the credit evaluation of the winning bidder, reduce the project risks caused by unreliable suppliers, and improve the success rate and reliability of the bidding project.

[0083] The following is a further explanation of the method for evaluating the winning bid price. Figure 2 , methods for evaluating the winning bid price may include:

[0084] Step 201, determining the influence coefficients of at least two pricing factors according to the current winning bid price and the subject of the bidding project to be evaluated, and obtaining a first influence coefficient sequence.

[0085] The subject of the tender project to be evaluated usually refers to the project content or physical object clearly listed in the tender documents, and is the specific project or service that the tenderer hopes to achieve or obtain through bidding. The subject determines the scope, scale and specific needs of the tender project, thereby affecting the overall cost, quality requirements and time schedule. The subject may include pricing factor information involved in the tender project to be evaluated, and the pricing factors of the tender project to be evaluated can be determined based on the pricing factor information involved in the tender project to be evaluated included in the subject. For example, the subject of the tender project to be evaluated may include a 5-kilometer highway construction, six months to complete, and a construction difficulty of level two. The factor items of the pricing factor may include kilometer length, construction period, and construction difficulty, and the corresponding factor values ​​of the pricing factor may include 5 kilometers, six months, and level two.

[0086] The factor values ​​of the current winning bid price and the various pricing factors of the tender project to be evaluated can be input into the data processing model or the price inversion system, and the output of the model or system is the influence coefficient of each pricing factor, and the influence coefficient of each pricing factor constitutes the first influence coefficient sequence. For example, assuming that the influence coefficient of volume (for example, per kilometer) is 800, the influence coefficient of construction period is 500, and the influence coefficient of construction difficulty is 1.15, the first influence coefficient sequence can be 800, 500, 1.15.

[0087] Step 202, determining the influence coefficients of at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject matter of historical bidding projects, and obtaining a second influence coefficient sequence.

[0088] There may be one or more historical bidding projects. When there are multiple historical bidding projects, the second influence coefficient sequence may be determined by combining the multiple historical bidding projects and their actual winning bid prices.

[0089] Specifically, when there are multiple historical bidding projects, the weight of the corresponding historical bidding project can be determined according to the generation time of each historical bidding project. The earlier the generation time of the historical bidding project, the lower the corresponding weight can be, and the closer the generation time is to the initiation time of the bidding project to be evaluated, the higher the corresponding weight can be. According to the subject matter and the actual winning bid price of each historical bidding project, the influence coefficient of at least two pricing factors of each historical bidding project is determined to obtain the influence coefficient sequence of each historical bidding project. The method for determining the influence coefficient sequence of each historical bidding project can refer to the method for determining the influence coefficient sequence of the bidding project to be evaluated. The second influence coefficient sequence is determined according to the influence coefficient sequence of each historical bidding project and the weight of each historical bidding project. Specifically, the influence coefficient sequence of each historical bidding project and the weight of the corresponding historical bidding project can be multiplied and summed, and the sequence obtained after the summation is the second influence coefficient sequence.

[0090] For example, three historical bidding projects can be selected, Project 1, Project 2 and Project 3. The generation time of these three projects can be one year ago, half a year ago and one month ago respectively, and the weights of the three projects decrease in sequence. Assuming that the bidding project to be evaluated is a road construction project, and these three historical bidding projects are three other road construction projects, and the pricing factors include volume, construction period and construction difficulty, then the influence coefficient sequence of each project in these three historical bidding projects will be a triple consisting of the influence coefficient of volume, the influence coefficient of construction period and the influence coefficient of construction difficulty. The triple representing the influence coefficient sequence of each project can be multiplied by the weight of the corresponding project and then summed to obtain the second influence coefficient sequence.

[0091] In some embodiments, when there are multiple historical bidding projects, after obtaining the influence coefficient sequence of each historical bidding project, the corresponding values ​​in each influence coefficient sequence may be averaged to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence.

[0092] In some embodiments, when there are many historical bidding projects, it is also possible to first remove obviously abnormal influence coefficient sequences from the influence coefficient sequences of each historical bidding project, and determine a second influence coefficient sequence based on the remaining influence coefficient sequence after removal to reduce interference from random and abnormal situations.

[0093] Step 203: Calculate the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence.

[0094] Specifically, the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence may be calculated using Euclidean distance, cosine similarity, Pearson correlation coefficient, Manhattan distance, etc. The similarity value may be between 0 and 1, and the closer the value is to 1, the more similar the two sequences are.

[0095] Step 204: determine the price evaluation result according to the similarity.

[0096] The price evaluation result includes pass and fail. Specifically, a similarity threshold can be set, and if the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence exceeds the preset similarity threshold, the price evaluation result can be considered to be passed.

[0097] In this embodiment, historical data is combined with current actual conditions to evaluate the current winning bid price, which improves the reference value of the evaluation results and makes the evaluation results explainable; the two influence coefficients are serialized, and the price evaluation results are determined by calculating the similarity of the influence coefficient sequences, providing a quantitative and transparent evaluation method, increasing the transparency of the decision-making process, and reducing the possibility of human misjudgment; the standardized evaluation process reduces duplication of work and improves evaluation efficiency.

[0098] The following is a further explanation of the method for evaluating the winning bidder. Figure 3a , the methods for evaluating the successful bidder may include:

[0099] Step 301, establish a credit evaluation system, which includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a program layer.

[0100] The credit evaluation target of the target layer is the credit level of the sample users in the sample user group. The criterion layer includes various credit evaluation indicators that affect the credit evaluation target. The scheme layer includes various credit evaluation factors that affect the credit evaluation target. The sample users can be users who have participated in project bidding. The credit level of the sample users can be calibrated or set manually or by machine.

[0101] For example, the credit rating system established may be as follows: Figure 3b As shown, where:

[0102] The credit evaluation target of the target layer is the credit level;

[0103] The credit evaluation indicators included in the criteria layer may include: financial situation, project performance ability, project management ability, technical ability, customer evaluation, and compliance;

[0104] At the solution level, the credit evaluation factors corresponding to the financial situation include: total liabilities, total assets, and annual revenue; the credit evaluation factors corresponding to the project performance capability include: historical project completion rate and contract default rate; the credit evaluation factors corresponding to the project management capability include: the project manager's years of experience, the professional background of the core team, the project progress tracking mechanism, the project quality management mechanism, the emergency plan and response capability, and the communication and coordination ability; the credit evaluation factors corresponding to the technical capability include: technical qualifications and certifications, the advancement of technical equipment, R&D investment and innovation capability, construction technology level, and project success rate; the credit evaluation factors corresponding to customer evaluation include: complaint rate, resolution rate, and customer retention rate; the credit evaluation factors corresponding to compliance include: labor compliance and construction compliance.

[0105] Step 302: Establish a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level, and establish a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors at the solution level.

[0106] Specifically, the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target can be determined, and a first pairwise comparison matrix can be established based on the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target. The importance scale of the credit evaluation factors at the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators at the criterion layer can be determined, and a second pairwise comparison matrix can be established based on the importance scale of the credit evaluation factors at the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators at the criterion layer.

[0107] Credit evaluation indicators or credit evaluation factors can be compared in pairs, and the comparison results can be summarized into corresponding scale values. For example: if factor i is equally important as factor j, the importance scale of factor i and factor j is 1; if factor i is slightly more important than factor j, the importance scale of factor i and factor j is 2; if factor i is more important than factor j, the importance scale of factor i and factor j is 3; if factor i is very important than factor j, the importance scale of factor i and factor j is 4. Assume that the pairwise comparison matrix has an element A. ij , then A ij It can express the comparison result of the i-th factor relative to the j-th factor, that is, the ratio of the importance of the i-th factor and the j-th factor to a certain indicator or goal.

[0108] In practical applications, there is one first pair of comparison matrices established for the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level, and there are multiple second pair-wise comparison matrices established for the credit evaluation factors at the solution level. Each second pair-wise comparison matrix represents the importance scale ratio of the credit evaluation factors at the solution level to a corresponding credit evaluation indicator at the criterion level. The data in the second pair-wise comparison matrix can be equal to the number of credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level. For example, Figure 3bIn the credit evaluation system shown, there will be 6 second pairwise comparison matrices, and these 6 second pairwise comparison matrices can be expressed in turn as follows: the importance scale ratios of total liabilities, total assets and annual revenue relative to the pairwise comparison of financial conditions; the importance scale ratios of historical project completion rate and contract default rate relative to the comparison of project performance capabilities; the importance scale ratios of project manager's years of experience, core team's professional background, project progress tracking mechanism, project quality management mechanism, emergency plan and response capability, communication and coordination ability relative to project management capabilities; the importance scale ratios of technical qualifications and certifications, the advancement of technical equipment, R&D investment and innovation capability, construction technology level and project success rate relative to technical capabilities; the importance scale ratios of complaint rate, resolution rate and customer retention rate relative to the pairwise comparison of customer evaluations; the importance scale ratios of labor compliance and construction compliance relative to the comparison of compliance.

[0109] Step 303, calculate the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, and calculate the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix.

[0110] Specifically, the data in the first pairwise comparison matrix can be normalized and then summed in rows, and the data obtained by the normalized row sum is multiplied with the first pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation index at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target. The data in the second pairwise comparison matrix can be normalized and then summed in rows, and the data obtained by the normalized row sum is multiplied with the second pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index at the criterion layer.

[0111] Step 304, determine the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target based on the weight of the credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer, thereby obtaining the weight of each credit evaluation factor.

[0112] Specifically, the weight of the credit evaluation index at the criterion level relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme level relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index at the criterion level can be multiplied and summed to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme level relative to the credit evaluation target. The weight of the credit evaluation factor at the scheme level relative to the credit evaluation target is the weight of each credit evaluation factor.

[0113] Step 305, obtaining the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor values ​​and weights of each credit evaluation factor, and obtaining a user evaluation result.

[0114] Each credit evaluation factor can be scored according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current winning bidder, thereby obtaining the score of each credit evaluation factor, and the score of each credit evaluation factor is multiplied by the weight of the corresponding credit evaluation factor and then summed to obtain the credit score of the current winning bidder, and the user evaluation result is determined according to the credit score of the current winning bidder. For example, if the credit score of the current winning bidder exceeds the preset score, the user evaluation result is determined to be passed.

[0115] In this embodiment, a credit evaluation system including a target layer, a criterion layer and a program layer is constructed to ensure the scientificity and systematicity of the credit evaluation process. The hierarchical structure makes the evaluation system clearer and more systematic. The paired comparison matrix and weight calculation method are used to make the evaluation more quantitative and scientific, based on objective data and standards, reducing human bias and errors. The weights of each level are accurately calculated through the first and second paired comparison matrices. The weight calculation reflects the actual importance of each evaluation indicator and factor, and the weight of each credit evaluation factor can be accurately calculated. Different credit evaluation factors are combined to provide a comprehensive credit evaluation. The quantitative credit evaluation results can provide reliable data support for decision-making.

[0116] Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of a structure of a bid winning result evaluation device provided in an embodiment of the present invention, and the device is suitable for executing a bid winning result evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present invention, such as Figure 4 As shown, the device may specifically include:

[0117] An acquisition module 401 is used to acquire the winning bid result of the tender project to be evaluated, wherein the winning bid result includes the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder;

[0118] A first determining module 402 is used to determine the price calculation rule of the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain a first pricing rule;

[0119] The second determination module 403 is used to obtain the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain the second pricing rule;

[0120] The price evaluation module 404 is used to evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result;

[0121] The user evaluation module 405 is used to obtain the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluate the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result;

[0122] The comprehensive evaluation module 406 is used to determine the winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

[0123] In one embodiment, the first determining module 402 determines the price calculation rule of the tender project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain the first pricing rule, including: determining the influence coefficients of at least two pricing factors according to the current winning bid price and the subject of the tender project to be evaluated to obtain a first influence coefficient sequence;

[0124] The second determination module 403 determines the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain a second pricing rule, including: determining the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject of the historical bidding project to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence.

[0125] In one embodiment, there are multiple historical bidding projects, and the second determining module 403 determines the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject of the historical bidding project to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence, including:

[0126] Determine the weight of the corresponding historical bidding project according to the time when each of the historical bidding projects was generated;

[0127] Determine the influence coefficient of each of the historical bidding projects on the at least two pricing factors according to the subject matter and the actual winning bid price of each of the historical bidding projects, and obtain an influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding projects;

[0128] The second influence coefficient sequence is determined according to the influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding items and the weight of each of the historical bidding items.

[0129] In one embodiment, the price evaluation module 404 evaluates the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result, including:

[0130] Calculating the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence;

[0131] The price evaluation result is determined according to the similarity.

[0132] In one embodiment, the user evaluation module 405 evaluates the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result, including:

[0133] Obtaining the weights of the various credit evaluation factors;

[0134] The credit level of the current successful bidder is evaluated according to the factor values ​​and weights of the various credit evaluation factors to obtain the user evaluation result.

[0135] Optionally, the user evaluation module 405 obtains the weights of the various credit evaluation factors, including:

[0136] Establishing a credit evaluation system, the credit evaluation system includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer, the credit evaluation target of the target layer is the credit level of the sample user in the sample user group, the criterion layer includes various credit evaluation indicators that affect the credit evaluation target, and the scheme layer includes various credit evaluation factors that affect the credit evaluation target;

[0137] The weights of the various credit evaluation factors are calculated according to the credit evaluation system.

[0138] In one embodiment, the user evaluation module 405 calculates the weight of each credit evaluation factor according to the credit evaluation system, including:

[0139] Establishing a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level, and establishing a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors at the solution level;

[0140] Calculate the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, and calculate the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix;

[0141] The weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target is determined based on the weight of the credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer, thereby obtaining the weight of each credit evaluation factor.

[0142] In one embodiment, the user evaluation module 405 establishes a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer, including:

[0143] Determining the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target, and establishing the first pairwise comparison matrix according to the importance scale of the credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target;

[0144] The user evaluation module 405 establishes a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer, including:

[0145] Determine the importance scale of the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer, and establish the second pairwise comparison matrix according to the importance scale of the credit evaluation factors of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicators of the criterion layer.

[0146] In one embodiment, the user evaluation module 405 calculates the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, including:

[0147] Normalizing the data in the first pairwise comparison matrix and then performing row summation, normalizing the data obtained by the row summation and then multiplying it with the first pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target;

[0148] The user evaluation module 405 calculates the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix, including:

[0149] The data in the second pairwise comparison matrix is ​​normalized and then row summed. The data obtained by row summing is normalized and then multiplied with the second pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer.

[0150] In one embodiment, the user evaluation module 405 determines the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the solution layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the weight of the credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor at the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator at the criterion layer, including:

[0151] The weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target is multiplied and summed with the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer to obtain the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target.

[0152] Those skilled in the art can clearly understand that for the convenience and simplicity of description, only the division of the above-mentioned functional modules is used as an example for illustration. In actual applications, the above-mentioned functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device is divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. The specific working process of the functional modules described above can refer to the corresponding process in the aforementioned method embodiment, and will not be repeated here.

[0153] The device of this embodiment quickly completes the evaluation of the winning bid price and the winning bidder through an automated system and algorithm, significantly improves the review efficiency, reduces the time and workload of manual operation, reduces the reliance on manual review, and reduces the cost of human resources, especially when dealing with a large number of bidding projects. The cost advantage is more obvious. The evaluation process is based on fixed calculation rules and historical data, avoiding unfair factors caused by subjective judgment and ensuring the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation results. The evaluation process is transparent, and all steps and data are traceable, which is convenient for management and review, ensuring the openness, fairness and transparency of the bidding process. By analyzing a large amount of historical data, data-driven decision support is provided, the scientificity and accuracy of the review are improved, and human errors are reduced. Increase the credit evaluation of the winning bidder, reduce the project risks caused by unreliable suppliers, and improve the success rate and reliability of the bidding project.

[0154] An embodiment of the present invention further provides an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the program, the method for evaluating the winning bid result provided in any of the above embodiments is implemented.

[0155] An embodiment of the present invention further provides a computer-readable medium on which a computer program is stored. When the program is executed by a processor, the method for evaluating the bid winning result provided in any of the above embodiments is implemented.

[0156] Reference below Figure 5 , which shows a schematic diagram of the structure of a computer system 500 of an electronic device suitable for implementing an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 5 The electronic device shown is only an example and should not bring any limitation to the functions and scope of use of the embodiments of the present invention.

[0157] like Figure 5 As shown, the computer system 500 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 501, which can perform various appropriate actions and processes according to a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 502 or a program loaded from a storage part 508 into a random access memory (RAM) 503. In the RAM 503, various programs and data required for the operation of the computer system 500 are also stored. The CPU 501, the ROM 502, and the RAM 503 are connected to each other via a bus 504. An input / output (I / O) interface 505 is also connected to the bus 504.

[0158] The following components are connected to the I / O interface 505: an input section 506 including a keyboard, a mouse, etc.; an output section 507 including a cathode ray tube (CRT), a liquid crystal display (LCD), etc., and a speaker, etc.; a storage section 508 including a hard disk, etc.; and a communication section 509 including a network interface card such as a LAN card, a modem, etc. The communication section 509 performs communication processing via a network such as the Internet. A drive 510 is also connected to the I / O interface 505 as needed. A removable medium 511, such as a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, a semiconductor memory, etc., is installed on the drive 510 as needed, so that a computer program read therefrom is installed into the storage section 508 as needed.

[0159] In particular, according to the embodiments disclosed in the present invention, the process described above with reference to the flowchart can be implemented as a computer software program. For example, the embodiments disclosed in the present invention include a computer program product, which includes a computer program carried on a computer-readable medium, and the computer program includes a program code for executing the method shown in the flowchart. In such an embodiment, the computer program can be downloaded and installed from the network through the communication part 509, and / or installed from the removable medium 511. When the computer program is executed by the central processing unit (CPU) 501, the above-mentioned functions defined in the system of the present invention are executed.

[0160] It should be noted that the computer-readable medium shown in the present invention may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium or any combination of the above two. The computer-readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, device or device, or any combination of the above. More specific examples of computer-readable storage media may include, but are not limited to: an electrical connection with one or more wires, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the above. In the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, device or device. In the present invention, a computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or as part of a carrier wave, which carries a computer-readable program code. This propagated data signal may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to electromagnetic signals, optical signals, or any suitable combination of the above. Computer-readable signal media may also be any computer-readable medium other than computer-readable storage media, which may send, propagate or transmit a program for use by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device. The program code contained on the computer-readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to: wireless, wire, optical cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the above.

[0161] The flow chart and block diagram in the accompanying drawings illustrate the possible architecture, function and operation of the system, method and computer program product according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each box in the flow chart or block diagram can represent a module, a program segment, or a part of a code, and the above-mentioned module, program segment, or a part of a code contains one or more executable instructions for realizing the specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions marked in the box can also occur in a different order from the order marked in the accompanying drawings. For example, two boxes represented in succession can actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they can sometimes be executed in the opposite order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each box in the block diagram or flow chart, and the combination of the boxes in the block diagram or flow chart can be implemented with a dedicated hardware-based system that performs a specified function or operation, or can be implemented with a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0162] The modules and / or units involved in the embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in software or hardware. The modules and / or units described may also be arranged in a processor, for example, it may be described as follows: a processor includes an acquisition module, a first determination module, a second determination module, a price evaluation module, a user evaluation module, and a comprehensive evaluation module. The names of these modules do not, in some cases, constitute limitations on the modules themselves.

[0163] As another aspect, the present invention further provides a computer-readable medium, which may be included in the device described in the above embodiment; or may exist independently without being assembled into the device. The above computer-readable medium carries one or more programs, and when the above one or more programs are executed by a device, the device includes:

[0164] Obtain the winning result of the tender project to be evaluated, the winning result including the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder; determine the price calculation rule of the tender project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price, and obtain a first pricing rule; obtain the actual winning bid price of the historical tender project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical tender project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical tender project, and obtain a second pricing rule; evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule, and obtain a price evaluation result; obtain the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current winning bidder, and evaluate the credit level of the current winning bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor, and obtain a user evaluation result; determine the winning evaluation result of the tender project to be evaluated based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

[0165] According to the technical solution of the embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation of the winning bid price and the winning bidder is quickly completed through an automated system and algorithm, which significantly improves the review efficiency, reduces the time and workload of manual operation, reduces the reliance on manual review, and reduces the cost of human resources. The cost advantage is more obvious when dealing with a large number of bidding projects. The evaluation process is based on fixed calculation rules and historical data, which avoids unfair factors caused by subjective judgment and ensures the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation results. The evaluation process is transparent, and all steps and data are traceable, which is easy to manage and review, ensuring the openness, fairness and transparency of the bidding process. By analyzing a large amount of historical data, data-driven decision support is provided, the scientificity and accuracy of the review are improved, and human errors are reduced. Increase the credit evaluation of the winning bidder, reduce the project risks caused by unreliable suppliers, and improve the success rate and reliability of bidding projects.

[0166] It should be understood that the various forms of processes shown above can be used to reorder, add or delete steps. For example, the steps described in the present invention can be executed in parallel, sequentially or in different orders, as long as the desired results of the technical solution of the present invention can be achieved, and this document does not limit this.

[0167] It should be noted that the collection, collection, updating, analysis, processing, use, transmission, storage and other aspects of user personal information involved in the technical solution of this disclosure are in compliance with the provisions of relevant laws and regulations, are used for legitimate purposes, and do not violate public order and good morals. Necessary measures are taken for user personal information to prevent illegal access to user personal information data and maintain the security of user personal information, network security and national security.

[0168] The above specific implementations do not constitute a limitation on the protection scope of the present invention. It should be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications, combinations, sub-combinations and substitutions may occur depending on design requirements and other factors. Any modification, equivalent substitution and improvement made within the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating a bid winning result, characterized in that: include: Obtain the winning bid result of the bidding project to be evaluated, the winning bid result including the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder; Determine the price calculation rule of the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain a first pricing rule; Acquire the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain the second pricing rule; Evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result; Obtaining the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result; The bid winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated is determined based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

2. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step of determining the price calculation rule of the tender project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price to obtain a first pricing rule includes: determining the influence coefficients of at least two pricing factors according to the current winning bid price and the subject matter of the tender project to be evaluated to obtain a first influence coefficient sequence; Determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain a second pricing rule, including: determine the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject matter of the historical bidding project to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence.

3. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that: There are multiple historical bidding projects, and determining the influence coefficients of the at least two pricing factors according to the actual winning bid price and the subject matter of the historical bidding projects to obtain a second influence coefficient sequence includes: Determine the weight of the corresponding historical bidding project according to the time when each of the historical bidding projects was generated; Determine the influence coefficient of each of the historical bidding projects on the at least two pricing factors according to the subject matter and the actual winning bid price of each of the historical bidding projects, and obtain an influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding projects; The second influence coefficient sequence is determined according to the influence coefficient sequence of each of the historical bidding items and the weight of each of the historical bidding items.

4. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that: The rationality of the current winning bid price is evaluated according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result, including: Calculating the similarity between the first influence coefficient sequence and the second influence coefficient sequence; The price evaluation result is determined according to the similarity.

5. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step of evaluating the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor values ​​of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result includes: Obtaining the weights of the various credit evaluation factors; The credit level of the current successful bidder is evaluated according to the factor values ​​and weights of the various credit evaluation factors to obtain the user evaluation result.

6. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The obtaining of the weights of the various credit evaluation factors includes: Establishing a credit evaluation system, the credit evaluation system includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer, the credit evaluation target of the target layer is the credit level of the sample user in the sample user group, the criterion layer includes various credit evaluation indicators that affect the credit evaluation target, and the scheme layer includes various credit evaluation factors that affect the credit evaluation target; The weights of the various credit evaluation factors are calculated according to the credit evaluation system.

7. The bid winning result evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that: The calculating the weight of each credit evaluation factor according to the credit evaluation system includes: Establishing a first pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation indicators at the criterion level, and establishing a second pairwise comparison matrix for the credit evaluation factors at the solution level; Calculate the weight of the credit evaluation index of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target according to the first pairwise comparison matrix, and calculate the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the solution layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation index of the criterion layer according to the second pairwise comparison matrix; The weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the credit evaluation target is determined based on the weight of the credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer relative to the credit evaluation target and the weight of the credit evaluation factor of the scheme layer relative to the corresponding credit evaluation indicator of the criterion layer, thereby obtaining the weight of each credit evaluation factor.

8. A bidding result evaluation device, characterized in that: include: An acquisition module is used to acquire the winning bid result of the bidding project to be evaluated, wherein the winning bid result includes the current winning bid price and the current winning bidder; A first determining module, configured to determine a price calculation rule for the bidding project to be evaluated according to the current winning bid price, to obtain a first pricing rule; A second determination module is used to obtain the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project, and determine the price calculation rule of the historical bidding project according to the actual winning bid price of the historical bidding project to obtain a second pricing rule; A price evaluation module, used to evaluate the rationality of the current winning bid price according to the first pricing rule and the second pricing rule to obtain a price evaluation result; A user evaluation module, used to obtain the factor value of each credit evaluation factor of the current successful bidder, and evaluate the credit level of the current successful bidder according to the factor value of each credit evaluation factor to obtain a user evaluation result; A comprehensive evaluation module is used to determine the winning evaluation result of the bidding project to be evaluated based on the price evaluation result and the user evaluation result.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein: When the processor executes the program, the bid winning result evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 is implemented.

10. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the program is executed by a processor, the method for evaluating the bid winning result according to any one of claims 1 to 7 is implemented.

Images