Intelligent judgment method and system for centralized purchase suppliers

Abstract

The invention discloses an intelligent judgment method for centralized purchase suppliers, and the method comprises the following steps: S1, obtaining historical cooperative supplier data, and constructing a supplier library; s2, constructing a comprehensive evaluation index standard, and scoring suppliers in the supplier library obtained in the step S1 to obtain a supplier score database; s3, constructing a decision analysis model; s4, according to the supplier score database obtained in the step S2, using the decision analysis model obtained in the step S3 to obtain a supplier comprehensive score; and S5, according to the comprehensive scores of the suppliers obtained in the step S4, completing judgment of the suppliers. The invention also discloses a system for realizing the intelligent judgment method for the centralized purchase suppliers. According to the method, by means of a systematized evaluation strategy and an intelligent analysis process, supplier performance is perspective in all directions, the comprehensive capacity of the supplier is accurately evaluated, the manual auditing burden is remarkably relieved, and the cost benefit is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the field of computer algorithms, and in particular relates to a centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method and system. Background Art

[0002] With the increasing refinement of corporate procurement management and the globalization of supply chains, centralized procurement has become an important means for companies to optimize costs and improve efficiency. However, as the core link of centralized procurement, the traditional manual evaluation method of supplier evaluation can no longer meet the high requirements of modern enterprises for supplier management. At present, supplier evaluation mainly relies on manual information collection, subjective judgment and experience-based decision-making, which is not only inefficient, but also easily introduces subjective bias, affecting the fairness and accuracy of the evaluation.

[0003] In recent years, with the rapid development of technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data analysis, intelligent evaluation methods have gradually become a research hotspot in the field of supplier evaluation. Intelligent evaluation methods can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of evaluation through automated data collection, intelligent analysis and decision-making, while reducing the interference of human factors. However, the existing intelligent evaluation systems still have limitations in data processing capabilities, comprehensiveness of evaluation dimensions, and real-time evaluation results, making it difficult to meet the high requirements of enterprises for supplier evaluation. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to provide an intelligent judgment method for centralized procurement suppliers. By introducing advanced data processing technology and intelligent algorithms, the automation, intelligence and real-time evaluation of suppliers can be realized, the efficiency and accuracy of supplier evaluation can be improved, and more comprehensive, objective and real-time supplier information can be provided to enterprises, thereby optimizing procurement decisions, reducing procurement risks and improving the overall efficiency of the supply chain.

[0005] A second objective of the present invention is to provide a system for implementing the centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method.

[0006] The present invention provides a centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method, comprising the following steps:

[0007] S1. Obtain historical cooperative supplier data and build a supplier database;

[0008] S2. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index standard, score the suppliers in the supplier database obtained in step S1, and obtain a supplier scoring database;

[0009] S3. Construct decision analysis model;

[0010] S4. Based on the supplier rating database obtained in step S2, the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 is used to obtain a comprehensive supplier rating;

[0011] S5. Complete the judgment on the supplier based on the comprehensive score of the supplier obtained in step S4.

[0012] Step S1 specifically includes: obtaining historical service cooperation supplier data, including supplier name, project name, project number, cooperation year, cooperation duration, and updating it regularly;

[0013] And classify the supplier data and build a supplier database;

[0014] The categories include goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers;

[0015] Goods suppliers are suppliers of various types of goods, including computer equipment and software suppliers, transportation suppliers, office furniture and equipment suppliers, file management equipment suppliers, and security equipment suppliers;

[0016] Engineering suppliers are suppliers that provide goods or services related to construction projects, including suppliers responsible for new construction, reconstruction, expansion, decoration, demolition and repair services and related goods;

[0017] Service suppliers specifically refer to suppliers other than goods suppliers and engineering suppliers. The services provided by service suppliers include information technology, intermediary consulting, leasing, property, printing, advertising, internal and external training and conferences.

[0018] In step S2, the comprehensive evaluation index standard first calculates the scores of each indicator in the supplier's external evaluation indicators, the scores of each indicator in the internal evaluation indicators, and the additional score of the cooperation time, and then obtains the weight of each indicator to obtain a supplier scoring database.

[0019] The calculation of external evaluation indicators includes the following steps:

[0020] Collect and clean data for suppliers in the supplier database to obtain supplier external data sets;

[0021] Perform data analysis on external data sets to convert the collected non-numerical information into numerical indicators;

[0022] Data collection requires the collection of official certification information, credit information, and business risk information;

[0023] Official certification information is the company's registration information, licenses, and qualification certifications obtained from government websites and official databases;

[0024] Credit information refers to the company’s credit rating, default record, and loan history obtained from credit rating agencies and credit information platforms;

[0025] Business risk information is collected from channels such as court announcements, legal litigation records, and industry reports to collect information on legal disputes, financial risks, and industry risks that the company is involved in;

[0026] Data cleaning is to remove duplicate data, standardize data, and fill data to obtain the supplier's external data set;

[0027] Data standardization is to unify the data formats from different sources; data filling is to deal with missing values ​​by filling in the mean, median or estimating using a predictive model;

[0028] Said data analysis includes text information conversion, legal proceedings and compliance records, licensing and certification, innovation capabilities, information security, and credit history;

[0029] The text information conversion includes sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and word frequency analysis; sentiment score is to convert text content into sentiment score value through natural language processing technology; topic modeling is to identify the topic in the text through the topic model and convert the topic frequency into a numerical value; word frequency analysis is to calculate the occurrence frequency of keywords and convert it into a numerical value;

[0030] The Legal Proceedings and Compliance Records are assigned different scores based on whether the supplier has a litigation record and the nature and severity of the litigation;

[0031] The licenses and certifications are scored based on the number of licenses or certifications you have, with different scores given based on the type;

[0032] The innovation capability is scored and converted into a numerical value based on the number of patents and the number of citations of technological products;

[0033] The information security is the number of security incidents that occurred to the supplier converted into a numerical value, and the security incidents include data leakage incidents;

[0034] The credit history is to convert the third-party credit rating results into numerical values, and to score the number of default events that occurred in the supplier and convert it into a negative numerical value.

[0035] Internal evaluation indicators set key evaluation indicators for goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers for manual scoring, and then weighted sum the scoring results to finally get the internal evaluation indicator score;

[0036] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for service providers are as follows:

[0037] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0038] 100 points: the contract is signed within 3 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 4-7 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 1-2 weeks; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within 2 weeks;

[0039] Service staffing status:

[0040] 100 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel configuration exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit; 60-79 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service personnel configuration is less than the preset benchmark value;

[0041] Problem Solving Skills:

[0042] 100 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 hours; 80-99 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 to 48 hours; 60-79 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 2 to 5 days; 0-59 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within more than 5 days;

[0043] Timely completion of service

[0044] 100 points: service delivery time reaches the minimum threshold; 80-99 points: service delivery time reaches the preset benchmark value; 60-79 points: service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by less than 20%; 0-59 points: service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by more than 20%;

[0045] Quality of Service

[0046] 100 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is above 95%; 80-99 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is 85%-94%; 60-79 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is 70%-84%; 0-59 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is less than 70%;

[0047] Disputes and litigation

[0048] 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation events; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records, no litigation events; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records, and less than 3 litigation events; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records, or more than 3 litigation events;

[0049] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for goods suppliers are as follows:

[0050] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0051] 100 points: the contract is signed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within more than 10 working days;

[0052] Product delivery time

[0053] 100 points: product delivery time is before the preset time; 80-99 points: product delivery time is within 3 days of the preset time; 60-79 points: product delivery time is within 1 week of the preset time; 0-59 points: product delivery time exceeds 1 week;

[0054] Product acceptance time

[0055] 100 points: product acceptance is completed within 1-2 working days after receipt; 80-99 points: product acceptance time is within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: product acceptance time is within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: product acceptance time exceeds 10 working days;

[0056] Product Quality

[0057] 100 points: product quality meets the preset standard; 80-99 points: product quality reaches more than 90% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: product quality reaches 70% to 90% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: product quality is lower than 70% of the preset standard;

[0058] Product stability

[0059] 100 points: the product runs without any faults; 80-99 points: the product runs with less than 3 faults; 60-79 points: the product runs with 3 to 10 faults; 0-59 points: the product runs with more than 10 faults;

[0060] Comprehensive evaluation of product performance

[0061] 100 points: product performance indicators exceed industry standards; 80-99 points: product performance indicators meet industry standards; 60-79 points: product performance indicators reach more than 90% of industry standards; 0-59 points: product performance indicators are lower than 90% of industry standards;

[0062] Response time to failure

[0063] 100 points: fault response time is within 1-2 hours; 80-99 points: fault response time is within 3-5 hours; 60-79 points: fault response time is within 6-12 hours; 0-59 points: fault response time exceeds 12 hours;

[0064] Problem Solving

[0065] 100 points: the problem is solved within 1-2 working days; 80-99 points: the problem is solved within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: the problem is solved within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: the problem is solved within more than 10 working days;

[0066] Service staffing status:

[0067] 100 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel configuration exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit; 60-79 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service personnel configuration is less than the preset benchmark value;

[0068] Disputes and litigation

[0069] 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation events; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records, no litigation events; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records, and less than 3 litigation events; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records, or more than 3 litigation events;

[0070] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for engineering suppliers are as follows:

[0071] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0072] 100 points: the contract is signed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within more than 10 working days;

[0073] Project progress

[0074] 100 points: the project progress reaches the preset value; 80-99 points: the project progress reaches more than 90% of the preset value; 60-79 points: the project progress reaches more than 75% of the preset value; 0-59 points: the project progress is less than 75% of the preset value;

[0075] Staged supervision acceptance or overall project completion acceptance

[0076] 100 points: all acceptances are passed at one time; 80-99 points: 90% of the acceptances are passed at one time; 60-79 points: 80% of the acceptances are passed at one time; 0-59 points: less than 80% of the acceptances are passed at one time;

[0077] Transfer of relevant archival materials

[0078] 100 points: the archival materials are complete; 80-99 points: the archival materials are complete by more than 95%; 60-79 points: the archival materials are complete by more than 85%; 0-59 points: the archival materials are complete by less than 85%;

[0079] Warranty after acceptance

[0080] 100 points: all problems within the warranty period are solved; 80-99 points: more than 90% of the problems within the warranty period are solved; 60-79 points: more than 75% of the problems within the warranty period are solved; 0-59 points: more than 25% of the problems within the warranty period are not solved;

[0081] Engineering quality

[0082] 100 points: the project quality exceeds the preset standard; 80-99 points: the project quality reaches more than 95% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: the project quality is between 85% and 95% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: the project quality is lower than 85% of the preset standard;

[0083] Communication and coordination between construction parties

[0084] 100 points: no conflict in communication and coordination; 80-99 points: less than 3 conflicts in communication and coordination; 60-79 points: between 3 and 10 conflicts in communication and coordination; 0-59 points: more than 10 conflicts in communication and coordination;

[0085] Construction unit's review and reduction of settlement payment

[0086] 100 points: the settlement review reduction rate meets the preset value and no additional review is required; 80-99 points: the settlement review reduction rate meets the preset value, but additional review is required; 60-79 points: the settlement review reduction rate exceeds the preset value by less than 10%; 0-59 points: the settlement review reduction rate exceeds the preset value by more than 10% or there are major financial problems;

[0087] Production safety accidents

[0088] 100 points: no safety accidents; 80-99 points: the number of accidents is less than or equal to 2 times, and no major injuries or losses are caused; 60-79 points: the number of production safety accidents is less than 3 times; 0-59 points: the number of production safety accidents is more than 3 times or the safety accidents cause major injuries or losses;

[0089] Disputes and litigation

[0090] 100 points: no dispute record and no litigation; 80-99 points: fewer than 3 dispute records and no litigation; 60-79 points: fewer than 10 dispute records and fewer than 3 litigations; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records or more than 3 litigations.

[0091] The additional points for the length of cooperation are for suppliers who already have a record of cooperation. A preset fixed point value is added for each year of cooperation record, and a preset maximum threshold is set.

[0092] In step S2, weights are obtained for the scores of each indicator in the external evaluation index, the scores of each indicator in the internal evaluation index, and the additional score of the cooperation duration, and the weights are obtained by interview evaluation of relevant departments, scoring by expert decision makers, or hierarchical analysis method;

[0093] The analytic hierarchy process is to determine the relative importance of different indicators through pairwise comparison, and finally calculate the weight of each indicator;

[0094] The expert decision maker scoring is achieved by inviting industry experts or internal decision makers to score the importance of the indicators, and then confirming the weights based on the evaluation scores.

[0095] The decision analysis model in step S3 includes a time weight calculation module, an internal evaluation index total score calculation module, an external evaluation index total score calculation module, a cooperation time added value calculation module and a supplier evaluation analysis report generation module;

[0096] The time weight calculation module calculates the time weight and then inputs it into the internal evaluation index total score calculation module; the internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the internal evaluation index total score based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the external evaluation index total score based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module generates the supplier evaluation analysis report based on the input data.

[0097] The time weight calculation module is based on the normalized Gaussian function to calculate the weight k of the total score of internal evaluation indicators in different years that decays over time. x , use the following formula to calculate:

[0098]

[0099] Among them, g x is the initial weight of the target year; σ is the standard deviation; b is a constant; x is the historical year and x=-1,-2,...,-∞, calculated by the following formula:

[0100] x=a s -a n

[0101] Among them, a s is the year to which the weight is calculated; a nis the current year;

[0102] Normalize all initial weights so that the sum of the weights is 1 and use the following formula to calculate:

[0103]

[0104] Among them, k x is the time weight of the target year finally obtained;

[0105] The internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual internal evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula:

[0106] S x =∑C j m ij

[0107] Among them, S x The supplier's annual internal evaluation index score; C j is the score of supplier internal evaluation index j; m ij is the weight of internal evaluation index j of supplier i, and ∑ j m ij =1;

[0108] The external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual external evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula:

[0109] E=∑E l m l

[0110] Among them, E is the supplier's annual external evaluation index score; E l is the score of supplier external evaluation index l; m l is the weight of the supplier's external evaluation index l, and ∑ l m l =1;

[0111] The cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data, using the following formula for calculation:

[0112] F=nB

[0113] Among them, F is the added value of the supplier's cooperation time, and F≤M, M is the threshold of the added value of the cooperation time; n is the number of years of cooperation; B is the preset value added for each year of cooperation;

[0114] The supplier evaluation analysis report generation module first calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the input data, and then obtains the supplier ranking and grade based on the comprehensive score to form a supplier evaluation analysis report;

[0115] The supplier's comprehensive score S is calculated using the following formula:

[0116] S=∑S x k x +Fm f +ΣE l m l

[0117] Among them, m f The weight of adding value to the duration of cooperation.

[0118] Step S4 specifically includes the following steps:

[0119] S41. Obtain the suppliers that need to be scored and screened this time from the supplier scoring database obtained in step S2 to obtain an initial supplier scoring data set;

[0120] S42. Compare the initial supplier rating data set with the preset bad record list, filter out bad suppliers, and obtain the supplier rating data set;

[0121] S43. Input the supplier rating data set into the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 to obtain a comprehensive rating of the supplier.

[0122] In step S5, the supplier is judged according to the comprehensive score of the supplier obtained in step S4, specifically:

[0123] For the comprehensive rating of suppliers, there are three preset cutoff values: T1, T2, and T3;

[0124] When the supplier's comprehensive score S ≥ T1, the supplier is judged to be grade A;

[0125] When the supplier's comprehensive score T2≤S<T1, the supplier is judged to be grade B;

[0126] When the supplier's comprehensive score T3≤S<T2, the supplier is judged to be grade C;

[0127] When the supplier's comprehensive score S is less than T3, the supplier is judged to be grade D and is deemed unqualified.

[0128] The present invention also provides a system for implementing the centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method, including a supplier historical data acquisition module, a comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module, a decision analysis model construction module, a supplier scoring module and a supplier judgment module;

[0129] The supplier historical data acquisition module acquires historical cooperative supplier data, builds a supplier database, and uploads the data to the comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module;

[0130] The comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module constructs comprehensive evaluation index standards based on the received data, scores the suppliers in the supplier database, obtains the supplier scoring database and uploads the data to the decision analysis model building module;

[0131] The decision analysis model building module builds a decision analysis model based on the received data and uploads the data to the supplier scoring module;

[0132] The supplier scoring module calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the received data and the supplier scoring database using a decision analysis model, and uploads the data to the supplier judgment module;

[0133] The supplier judgment module completes the judgment on the supplier based on the received data.

[0134] Beneficial effects of the present invention:

[0135] The present invention provides a centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method and system. With the help of systematic evaluation strategies and intelligent analysis processes, enterprises can gain a comprehensive understanding of supplier performance, accurately evaluate their comprehensive capabilities, significantly reduce the burden of human review, and improve cost-effectiveness. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0136] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the process of the present invention;

[0137] Figure 2 It is a structural schematic diagram of the method of the present invention;

[0138] Figure 3 A Gaussian function diagram for calculating time weight in the model of an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0139] The present invention provides a centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method, the flow chart of which is as follows: Figure 1 As shown, the following steps are included:

[0140] S1. Obtain historical cooperative supplier data and build a supplier database, specifically:

[0141] Obtain historical service cooperation supplier data, including supplier name, project name, project number, cooperation year, cooperation duration, and update it regularly;

[0142] And classify the supplier data and build a supplier database;

[0143] The categories include goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers;

[0144] Goods suppliers are suppliers of various types of goods, including computer equipment and software suppliers, transportation suppliers, office furniture and equipment suppliers, file management equipment suppliers, and security equipment suppliers;

[0145] Engineering suppliers are suppliers that provide goods or services related to construction projects, including suppliers responsible for new construction, reconstruction, expansion, decoration, demolition and repair services and related goods;

[0146] Service suppliers specifically refer to suppliers other than goods suppliers and engineering suppliers. The services provided by service suppliers include information technology, intermediary consulting, leasing, property, printing, advertising, internal and external training and conferences.

[0147] S2. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index standard, score the suppliers in the supplier database obtained in step S1, and obtain a supplier scoring database;

[0148] The comprehensive evaluation index standard first calculates the scores of each indicator in the supplier's external evaluation indicators, the scores of each indicator in the internal evaluation indicators, and the additional score of the cooperation duration, and then obtains the weight of each indicator to obtain a supplier scoring database.

[0149] The calculation of external evaluation indicators includes the following steps:

[0150] Collect and clean data for suppliers in the supplier database to obtain supplier external data sets;

[0151] Perform data analysis on external data sets to convert the collected non-numerical information into numerical indicators;

[0152] Data collection requires the collection of official certification information, credit information, and business risk information;

[0153] Official certification information is the company's registration information, licenses, and qualification certifications obtained from government websites and official databases;

[0154] Credit information refers to the company’s credit rating, default record, and loan history obtained from credit rating agencies and credit information platforms;

[0155] Business risk information is collected from channels such as court announcements, legal litigation records, and industry reports to collect information on legal disputes, financial risks, and industry risks that the company is involved in;

[0156] Data cleaning is to remove duplicate data, standardize data, and fill data to obtain the supplier's external data set;

[0157] Data standardization is to unify the data formats from different sources; data filling is to deal with missing values ​​by filling in the mean, median or estimating using a predictive model;

[0158] Said data analysis includes text information conversion, legal proceedings and compliance records, licensing and certification, innovation capabilities, information security, and credit history;

[0159] The text information conversion includes sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and word frequency analysis; sentiment score is to convert text content into sentiment score value through natural language processing technology; topic modeling is to identify the topic in the text through the topic model and convert the topic frequency into a numerical value; word frequency analysis is to calculate the occurrence frequency of keywords and convert it into a numerical value;

[0160] The Legal Proceedings and Compliance Records are assigned different scores based on whether the supplier has a litigation record and the nature and severity of the litigation;

[0161] The licenses and certifications are scored based on the number of licenses or certifications you have, with different scores given based on the type;

[0162] The innovation capability is scored and converted into a numerical value based on the number of patents and the number of citations of technological products;

[0163] The information security is the number of security incidents that occurred to the supplier converted into a numerical value, and the security incidents include data leakage incidents;

[0164] The credit history is to convert the third-party credit rating results into numerical values, and to score the number of default events that occurred in the supplier and convert it into a negative numerical value.

[0165] Internal evaluation indicators set key evaluation indicators for goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers for manual scoring, and then weighted sum the scoring results to finally get the internal evaluation indicator score;

[0166] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for service providers are as follows:

[0167] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0168] 100 points: the contract is signed within 3 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 4-7 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 1-2 weeks; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within 2 weeks;

[0169] Service staffing status:

[0170] 100 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel configuration exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit; 60-79 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service personnel configuration is less than the preset benchmark value;

[0171] Problem Solving Skills:

[0172] 100 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 hours; 80-99 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 to 48 hours; 60-79 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within 2 to 5 days; 0-59 points: customer feedback issues are resolved within more than 5 days;

[0173] Timely completion of service

[0174] 100 points: service delivery time reaches the minimum threshold; 80-99 points: service delivery time reaches the preset benchmark value; 60-79 points: service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by less than 20%; 0-59 points: service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by more than 20%;

[0175] Quality of Service

[0176] 100 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is above 95%; 80-99 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is 85%-94%; 60-79 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is 70%-84%; 0-59 points: the average customer satisfaction survey score is less than 70%;

[0177] Disputes and litigation

[0178] 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation events; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records, no litigation events; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records, and less than 3 litigation events; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records, or more than 3 litigation events;

[0179] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for goods suppliers are as follows:

[0180] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0181] 100 points: the contract is signed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within more than 10 working days;

[0182] Product delivery time

[0183] 100 points: product delivery time is before the preset time; 80-99 points: product delivery time is within 3 days of the preset time; 60-79 points: product delivery time is within 1 week of the preset time; 0-59 points: product delivery time exceeds 1 week;

[0184] Product acceptance time

[0185] 100 points: product acceptance is completed within 1-2 working days after receipt; 80-99 points: product acceptance time is within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: product acceptance time is within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: product acceptance time exceeds 10 working days;

[0186] Product Quality

[0187] 100 points: product quality meets the preset standard; 80-99 points: product quality reaches more than 90% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: product quality reaches 70% to 90% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: product quality is lower than 70% of the preset standard;

[0188] Product stability

[0189] 100 points: the product runs without any faults; 80-99 points: the product runs with less than 3 faults; 60-79 points: the product runs with 3 to 10 faults; 0-59 points: the product runs with more than 10 faults;

[0190] Comprehensive evaluation of product performance

[0191] 100 points: product performance indicators exceed industry standards; 80-99 points: product performance indicators meet industry standards; 60-79 points: product performance indicators reach more than 90% of industry standards; 0-59 points: product performance indicators are lower than 90% of industry standards;

[0192] Response time to failure

[0193] 100 points: fault response time is within 1-2 hours; 80-99 points: fault response time is within 3-5 hours; 60-79 points: fault response time is within 6-12 hours; 0-59 points: fault response time exceeds 12 hours;

[0194] Problem Solving

[0195] 100 points: the problem is solved within 1-2 working days; 80-99 points: the problem is solved within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: the problem is solved within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: the problem is solved within more than 10 working days;

[0196] Service staffing status:

[0197] 100 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel configuration exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit; 60-79 points: service personnel configuration reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service personnel configuration is less than the preset benchmark value;

[0198] Disputes and litigation

[0199] 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation events; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records, no litigation events; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records, and less than 3 litigation events; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records, or more than 3 litigation events;

[0200] The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for engineering suppliers are as follows:

[0201] Timeliness of contract signing:

[0202] 100 points: the contract is signed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: the contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: the contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: the contract is signed within more than 10 working days;

[0203] Project progress

[0204] 100 points: the project progress reaches the preset value; 80-99 points: the project progress reaches more than 90% of the preset value; 60-79 points: the project progress reaches more than 75% of the preset value; 0-59 points: the project progress is less than 75% of the preset value;

[0205] Staged supervision acceptance or overall project completion acceptance

[0206] 100 points: all acceptances are passed at one time; 80-99 points: 90% of the acceptances are passed at one time; 60-79 points: 80% of the acceptances are passed at one time; 0-59 points: less than 80% of the acceptances are passed at one time;

[0207] Transfer of relevant archival materials

[0208] 100 points: the archival materials are complete; 80-99 points: the archival materials are complete by more than 95%; 60-79 points: the archival materials are complete by more than 85%; 0-59 points: the archival materials are complete by less than 85%;

[0209] Warranty after acceptance

[0210] 100 points: all problems within the warranty period are solved; 80-99 points: more than 90% of the problems within the warranty period are solved; 60-79 points: more than 75% of the problems within the warranty period are solved; 0-59 points: more than 25% of the problems within the warranty period are not solved;

[0211] Engineering quality

[0212] 100 points: the project quality exceeds the preset standard; 80-99 points: the project quality reaches more than 95% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: the project quality is between 85% and 95% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: the project quality is lower than 85% of the preset standard;

[0213] Communication and coordination between construction parties

[0214] 100 points: no conflict in communication and coordination; 80-99 points: less than 3 conflicts in communication and coordination; 60-79 points: between 3 and 10 conflicts in communication and coordination; 0-59 points: more than 10 conflicts in communication and coordination;

[0215] Construction unit's review and reduction of settlement payment

[0216] 100 points: the settlement review reduction rate meets the preset value and no additional review is required; 80-99 points: the settlement review reduction rate meets the preset value, but additional review is required; 60-79 points: the settlement review reduction rate exceeds the preset value by less than 10%; 0-59 points: the settlement review reduction rate exceeds the preset value by more than 10% or there are major financial problems;

[0217] Production safety accidents

[0218] 100 points: no safety accidents; 80-99 points: the number of accidents is less than or equal to 2 times, and no major injuries or losses are caused; 60-79 points: the number of production safety accidents is less than 3 times; 0-59 points: the number of production safety accidents is more than 3 times or the safety accidents cause major injuries or losses;

[0219] Disputes and litigation

[0220] 100 points: no dispute record and no litigation; 80-99 points: fewer than 3 dispute records and no litigation; 60-79 points: fewer than 10 dispute records and fewer than 3 litigations; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records or more than 3 litigations.

[0221] The additional points for the length of cooperation are for suppliers who already have a record of cooperation. A preset fixed point value is added for each year of cooperation record, and a preset maximum threshold is set.

[0222] The weights of each indicator score in the external evaluation index, each indicator score in the internal evaluation index and the additional score of the cooperation duration are calculated respectively. The weights are obtained by interview evaluation of relevant departments, scoring by expert decision makers or hierarchical analysis method;

[0223] The analytic hierarchy process is to determine the relative importance of different indicators through pairwise comparison, and finally calculate the weight of each indicator;

[0224] The expert decision maker scoring is achieved by inviting industry experts or internal decision makers to score the importance of the indicators, and then confirming the weights based on the evaluation scores.

[0225] S3. Construct decision analysis model;

[0226] The decision analysis model includes a time weight calculation module, an internal evaluation index total score calculation module, an external evaluation index total score calculation module, a cooperation time added value calculation module and a supplier evaluation analysis report generation module;

[0227] The time weight calculation module calculates the time weight and then inputs it into the internal evaluation index total score calculation module; the internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the internal evaluation index total score based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the external evaluation index total score based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module generates the supplier evaluation analysis report based on the input data.

[0228] The time weight calculation module is based on the normalized Gaussian function to calculate the weight k of the total score of internal evaluation indicators in different years that decays over time. x , use the following formula to calculate:

[0229]

[0230] Among them, g x is the initial weight of the target year; σ is the standard deviation; b is a constant; x is the historical year and x=-1,-2,...,-∞, calculated by the following formula:

[0231] x=a s -a n

[0232] Among them, a s is the year to which the weight is calculated; a n is the current year;

[0233] Normalize all initial weights so that the sum of the weights is 1 and use the following formula to calculate:

[0234]

[0235] Among them, k x is the time weight of the target year finally obtained;

[0236] The internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual internal evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula:

[0237] S x =∑C j m ij

[0238] Among them, S x The supplier's annual internal evaluation index score; C j is the score of supplier internal evaluation index j; m ij is the weight of internal evaluation index j of supplier i, and Σ j m ij =1;

[0239] The external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual external evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula:

[0240] E=ΣE l m l

[0241] Among them, E is the supplier's annual external evaluation index score; E l is the score of supplier external evaluation index l; m l is the weight of the supplier's external evaluation index l, and ∑ l m l =1;

[0242] The cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data, using the following formula for calculation:

[0243] F=nB

[0244] Among them, F is the added value of the supplier's cooperation time, and F≤M, M is the threshold of the added value of the cooperation time; n is the number of years of cooperation; B is the preset value added for each year of cooperation;

[0245] The supplier evaluation analysis report generation module first calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the input data, and then obtains the supplier ranking and grade based on the comprehensive score to form a supplier evaluation analysis report;

[0246] The supplier's comprehensive score S is calculated using the following formula:

[0247] S=∑S x k x +Fm f +ΣE l m l

[0248] Among them, m f The weight of adding value to the duration of cooperation.

[0249] S4. Based on the supplier rating database obtained in step S2, the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 is used to obtain a comprehensive rating of the supplier, specifically comprising the following steps:

[0250] S41. Obtain the suppliers that need to be scored and screened this time from the supplier scoring database obtained in step S2 to obtain an initial supplier scoring data set;

[0251] S42. Compare the initial supplier rating data set with the preset bad record list, filter out bad suppliers, and obtain the supplier rating data set;

[0252] S43. Input the supplier rating data set into the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 to obtain a comprehensive rating of the supplier.

[0253] In step S5, the supplier is judged according to the comprehensive score of the supplier obtained in step S4, specifically:

[0254] For the comprehensive rating of suppliers, there are three preset cutoff values: T1, T2, and T3;

[0255] When the supplier's comprehensive score S ≥ T1, the supplier is judged to be grade A;

[0256] When the supplier's comprehensive score T2≤S<T1, the supplier is judged to be grade B;

[0257] When the supplier's comprehensive score T3≤S<T2, the supplier is judged to be grade C;

[0258] When the supplier's comprehensive score S is less than T3, the supplier is judged to be grade D and is deemed unqualified.

[0259] The present invention also provides a system for realizing the centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method, and its structural diagram is shown as follows: Figure 2 As shown, it includes a supplier historical data acquisition module, a comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module, a decision analysis model building module, a supplier scoring module and a supplier judgment module;

[0260] The supplier historical data acquisition module acquires historical cooperative supplier data, builds a supplier database, and uploads the data to the comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module;

[0261] The comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module constructs comprehensive evaluation index standards based on the received data, scores the suppliers in the supplier database, obtains the supplier scoring database and uploads the data to the decision analysis model building module;

[0262] The decision analysis model building module builds a decision analysis model based on the received data and uploads the data to the supplier rating analysis module;

[0263] The supplier scoring module calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the received data and the supplier scoring database using a decision analysis model, and uploads the data to the supplier judgment module;

[0264] The supplier judgment module completes the judgment on the supplier based on the received data.

[0265] The present invention will be further described below in conjunction with an embodiment:

[0266] In this embodiment, the following indicators and specific weights are used for scoring:

[0267] The total score of internal assessment indicators is set to 100 points, accounting for 55% of the weight of the entire evaluation system. The specific weight scores of each evaluation indicator for each type of supplier are as follows:

[0268]

[0269] The score is based on the length of cooperation, with 20 points added for each year of cooperation. The maximum score is set at 100 points, accounting for 5% of the total score of the evaluation system.

[0270] The total score of external evaluation indicators is set to 100 points, accounting for 40% of the total score of the entire evaluation system. The specific weights of each indicator are as follows:

[0271] Legality, qualifications and compliance [0-25];

[0272] Business risk situation [0-30];

[0273] Credit scores such as default records and loan history [0-25];

[0274] Innovation and technological capabilities [0-10];

[0275] Information security measures and data protection capabilities [0-10];

[0276] Suppliers are graded using the following scoring criteria:

[0277] a. Suppliers with an evaluation score of 90 points or above are Grade A suppliers;

[0278] b. Suppliers with evaluation scores of 75 points or above and below 90 points are Class B suppliers;

[0279] c. Suppliers with evaluation scores of 60 points or above and 75 points or below are Class C suppliers;

[0280] d. Suppliers with evaluation scores below 60 points are classified as D-level suppliers.

[0281] For the two service suppliers A and B, supplier A has cooperated twice in the past five years, in 2022 and 2023, with internal scores of 93 and 92 points, respectively. Supplier B has cooperated three times in the past five years, in 2021, 2022, and 2023, with internal scores of 93, 92, and 85 points. The latest external scoring indicators of suppliers A and B are 95 and 90, respectively. Among them, the specific scores of each indicator of suppliers A and B in each year are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

[0282] Table 1 Internal evaluation index scores of suppliers A and B

[0283]

[0284] Table 2 A and B supplier external evaluation index scores

[0285] External evaluation indicators A Supplier Score B Supplier Score Legality, qualifications and compliance 25 25 Business risk 28 27 Credit scores such as default records and loan history 25 23 Innovation and technical capabilities 8 7 Information security measures and data protection capabilities 9 8 Total score 95 90

[0286] In the decision analysis model of this embodiment, the formula based on the normalized Gaussian function in the time weight calculation module is:

[0287]

[0288] In which, the value of b is set to -1, σ 2 Set to 5, which means that the coefficient of the most recent year accounts for the highest proportion and the score values ​​of the past five years are used as the main reference; its Gaussian function graph is as follows Figure 3 shown.

[0289] Calculate the annual weight coefficient g of the internal score based on the Gaussian function x The calculation formula is as follows:

[0290]

[0291] The results are as follows: g-1 is 0.178, g-2 is 0.161, and g-3 is 0.120;

[0292] Then calculate the time weight k according to the following formula x :

[0293]

[0294] The time weight of supplier A in the past two years is: k -2a is 0.475, k -1a is 0.525;

[0295] Similarly, the time weight of supplier B in the past three years is: k -3b is 0.261, k -2b is 0.351, k -1b is 0.388;

[0296] Finally, the total score of supplier A = A's internal evaluation weight score + A's cooperation time additional score weight score + A's external evaluation weight score = (0.475*93+0.525*92)+2*20*0.05+95*0.4=90.92;

[0297] The total score of supplier B = B's internal evaluation weight score + B's cooperation time additional score weight score + B's external evaluation weight score = (0.261*93+0.351*92+0.388*85)+3*20*0.05+90*0.4=88.22;

[0298] So the final result is:

[0299] Supplier A, 90.92 points, grade: A;

[0300] Supplier B, 88.22 points, grade: B.

[0301] Analysis: Supplier A has higher overall scores and ratings than Supplier B, as evidenced by its better service quality and better handling of disputes and litigation over the years.

Claims

1. A centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1. Obtain historical cooperative supplier data and build a supplier database; S2. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index standard, score the suppliers in the supplier database obtained in step S1, and obtain a supplier scoring database; S3. Construct decision analysis model; S4. Based on the supplier rating database obtained in step S2, the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 is used to obtain a comprehensive supplier rating; S5. Complete the judgment on the supplier based on the comprehensive score of the supplier obtained in step S4.

2. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Step S1 specifically includes: obtaining historical service cooperation supplier data, including supplier name, project name, project number, cooperation year, cooperation duration, and updating it regularly; Classify supplier data and build a supplier database.

3. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The categories include goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers; Goods suppliers are suppliers of various types of goods, including computer equipment and software suppliers, transportation suppliers, office furniture and equipment suppliers, file management equipment suppliers, and security equipment suppliers; Engineering suppliers are suppliers that provide goods or services related to construction projects, including suppliers responsible for new construction, reconstruction, expansion, decoration, demolition and repair services and related goods; Service suppliers specifically refer to suppliers other than goods suppliers and engineering suppliers. The services provided by service suppliers include information technology, intermediary consulting, leasing, property, printing, advertising, internal and external training and conferences.

4. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 3 is characterized in that: In step S2, the comprehensive evaluation index standard first calculates the scores of each indicator in the supplier's external evaluation index, the scores of each indicator in the internal evaluation index, and the additional score of the cooperation time, and then obtains the weight of each indicator to obtain the supplier scoring database; The weights of each indicator score in the external evaluation index, each indicator score in the internal evaluation index and the additional score of the cooperation duration are calculated respectively. The weights are obtained by interview evaluation of relevant departments, scoring by expert decision makers or hierarchical analysis method; The analytic hierarchy process is to determine the relative importance of different indicators through pairwise comparison, and finally calculate the weight of each indicator; The expert decision maker scoring is achieved by inviting industry experts or internal decision makers to score the importance of the indicators, and then confirming the weights based on the evaluation scores.

5. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The calculation of external evaluation indicators includes the following steps: Collect and clean data for suppliers in the supplier database to obtain supplier external data sets; Perform data analysis on external data sets to convert the collected non-numerical information into numerical indicators; Data collection requires the collection of official certification information, credit information, and business risk information; Official certification information is the company's registration information, licenses, and qualification certifications obtained from government websites and official databases; Credit information refers to the company’s credit rating, default record, and loan history obtained from credit rating agencies and credit information platforms; Business risk information is collected from channels such as court announcements, legal litigation records, and industry reports to collect information on legal disputes, financial risks, and industry risks that the company is involved in; Data cleaning is to remove duplicate data, standardize data, and fill data to obtain the supplier's external data set; Data standardization is to unify the data formats from different sources; data filling is to deal with missing values ​​by filling in the mean, median or estimating using a predictive model; Said data analysis includes text information conversion, legal proceedings and compliance records, licensing and certification, innovation capabilities, information security, and credit history; The text information conversion includes sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and word frequency analysis; sentiment score is to convert text content into sentiment score value through natural language processing technology; topic modeling is to identify the topic in the text through the topic model and convert the topic frequency into a numerical value; word frequency analysis is to calculate the occurrence frequency of keywords and convert it into a numerical value; The Legal Proceedings and Compliance Records are assigned different scores based on whether the supplier has a litigation record and the nature and severity of the litigation; The licenses and certifications are scored based on the number of licenses or certifications you have, with different scores given based on the type; The innovation capability is scored and converted into a numerical value based on the number of patents and the number of citations of technological products; The information security is the number of security incidents that occurred to the supplier converted into a numerical value, and the security incidents include data leakage incidents; The credit history is to convert the third-party credit rating results into numerical values, and to score the number of default events that occurred in the supplier and convert it into a negative numerical value.

6. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 4 is characterized in that: Internal evaluation indicators set key evaluation indicators for goods suppliers, engineering suppliers, and service suppliers for manual scoring, and then weighted sum the scoring results to finally get the internal evaluation indicator score; The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for service providers are as follows: Timeliness of contract signing: 100 points: The contract is signed within 3 working days; 80-99 points: The contract is signed within 4-7 working days; 60-79 points: Contract signing is completed within 1-2 weeks; 0-59 points: The contract was signed more than 2 weeks ago; Service staffing status: 100 points: The service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel allocation exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit value; 60-79 points: service personnel allocation reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service staffing is insufficient to meet the preset benchmark value; Problem Solving Skills: 100 points: Customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 hours; 80-99 points: Customer feedback issues are resolved within 24 to 48 hours; 60-79 points: Customer feedback issues are resolved within 2 to 5 days; 0-59 points: The time taken to resolve the customer feedback issue exceeds 5 days; Timely completion of service: 100 points: service delivery time reaches the minimum threshold; 80-99 points: The service delivery time reaches the preset benchmark value; 60-79 points: Service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by less than 20%; 0-59 points: service delivery time exceeds the preset benchmark value by more than 20%; Quality of service: 100 points: average customer satisfaction survey score of more than 95%; 80-99 points: average customer satisfaction survey score of 85%-94%; 60-79 points: average customer satisfaction survey score 70%-84%; 0-59 points: The average customer satisfaction survey score is less than 70%; Disputes and litigation: 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation incidents; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records and no litigation; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records, and less than 3 lawsuits; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records, or more than 3 lawsuits; The key evaluation indicators and scoring standards for goods suppliers are as follows: Timely signing of contracts: 100 points: The contract is signed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: The contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: The contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: The contract signing is completed in more than 10 working days; Product delivery time: 100 points: Product delivery time is before the preset time; 80-99 points: Product delivery time is within 3 days of the preset time; 60-79 points: Product delivery time is within 1 week of the preset time; 0-59 points: Product delivery time exceeds 1 week; Product acceptance time: 100 points: Product acceptance is completed within 1-2 working days after receipt; 80-99 points: Product acceptance time is within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: product acceptance time is within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: product acceptance time exceeds 10 working days; Product Quality: 100 points: product quality meets the preset standards; 80-99 points: product quality reaches more than 90% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: product quality reaches 70% to 90% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: product quality is lower than 70% of the preset standard; Product stability: 100 points: The product operates without any faults; 80-99 points: product operation failure is less than 3 times; 60-79 points: product operation failures are 3 to 10 times; 0-59 points: product operation failure occurs more than 10 times; Comprehensive evaluation of product performance: 100 points: product performance indicators exceed industry standards; 80-99 points: product performance indicators meet industry standards; 60-79 points: product performance indicators reach more than 90% of the industry standard; 0-59 points: product performance indicators are lower than 90% of the industry standard; Time to respond to a fault: 100 points: fault response time is within 1-2 hours; 80-99 points: fault response time is within 3-5 hours; 60-79 points: fault response time is within 6-12 hours; 0-59 points: fault response time exceeds 12 hours; Problem Solving Skills: 100 points: the problem is solved within 1-2 working days; 80-99 points: the problem is solved within 3-5 working days; 60-79 points: the problem is solved within 6-10 working days; 0-59 points: the problem resolution time exceeds 10 working days; Service staffing status: 100 points: The service personnel configuration reaches the preset upper limit; 80-99 points: service personnel allocation exceeds the preset benchmark value and is less than the preset upper limit value; 60-79 points: service personnel allocation reaches the preset benchmark value; 0-59 points: service staffing is insufficient to meet the preset benchmark value; Disputes and litigation: 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation incidents; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records and no litigation; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records and less than 3 lawsuits; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records or more than 3 lawsuits; The key evaluation indicators and scoring criteria for engineering suppliers are as follows: Timeliness of contract signing: 100 points: The contract signing is completed within 1 to 2 working days; 80-99 points: The contract is signed within 3 to 5 working days; 60-79 points: The contract is signed within 6 to 10 working days; 0-59 points: The contract signing is completed in more than 10 working days; Project progress: 100 points: The project progress reaches the preset value; 80-99 points: The project progress reaches more than 90% of the preset value; 60-79 points: The project progress reaches more than 75% of the preset value; 0-59 points: the project progress is less than 75% of the preset value; Staged supervision acceptance or overall project completion acceptance: 100 points: All acceptances are passed at one time; 80-99 points: 90% acceptance is passed at one time; 60-79 points: 80% acceptance is passed at one time; 0-59 points: The acceptance rate of the first-time pass is less than 80%; Transfer of relevant archival materials: 100 points: The archival materials are complete; 80-99 points: the completeness of the archival materials is more than 95%; 60-79 points: the completeness of the archival materials is more than 85%; 0-59 points: the completeness of the archival materials is less than 85%; Warranty after acceptance: 100 points: All problems are resolved during the warranty period; 80-99 points: more than 90% of the problems during the warranty period are resolved; 60-79 points: more than 75% of the problems during the warranty period are resolved; 0-59 points: More than 25% of the problems during the warranty period have not been resolved; engineering quality: 100 points: The project quality exceeds the preset standards; 80-99 points: The project quality reaches more than 95% of the preset standard; 60-79 points: The project quality is between 85% and 95% of the preset standard; 0-59 points: The project quality is lower than 85% of the preset standard; Communication and coordination between construction parties: 100 points: Communication and coordination without conflict; 80-99 points: Communication and coordination conflicts are less than 3 times; 60-79 points: The number of communication and coordination conflicts is between 3 and 10; 0-59 points: The number of communication and coordination conflicts is greater than 10 times; The reduction of the settlement amount submitted by the construction unit for review: 100 points: The settlement review reduction rate meets the preset value and no additional review is required; 80-99 points: The settlement reduction rate meets the preset value, but additional review is required; 60-79 points: the settlement reduction rate exceeds the preset value by less than 10%; 0-59 points: The settlement reduction rate exceeds the preset value by more than 10% or there are major financial problems; Production safety accidents: 100 points: no safety incidents; 80-99 points: The number of accidents is less than or equal to 2, and no major injuries or losses are caused; 60-79 points: less than 3 production safety accidents; 0-59 points: more than 3 production safety accidents or major injuries or losses caused by production safety accidents; Disputes and litigation: 100 points: no dispute record, no litigation incidents; 80-99 points: less than 3 dispute records and no litigation; 60-79 points: less than 10 dispute records and less than 3 lawsuits; 0-59 points: more than 10 dispute records or more than 3 lawsuits; The additional points for the length of cooperation are for suppliers who already have a record of cooperation. A preset fixed point value is added for each year of cooperation record, and a preset maximum threshold is set.

7. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The decision analysis model in step S3 includes a time weight calculation module, an internal evaluation index total score calculation module, an external evaluation index total score calculation module, a cooperation time added value calculation module and a supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; The time weight calculation module calculates the time weight, and then inputs it into the internal evaluation index total score calculation module; the internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the internal evaluation index total score according to the input data, and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; the external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the external evaluation index total score according to the input data, and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; The cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data, and then inputs it into the supplier evaluation analysis report generation module; The supplier evaluation and analysis report generation module generates a supplier evaluation and analysis report based on the input data; The time weight calculation module is based on the normalized Gaussian function to calculate the weight k of the total score of internal evaluation indicators in different years that decays over time. x , use the following formula to calculate: Among them, g x is the initial weight of the target year; σ is the standard deviation; b is a constant; x is the historical year and x=-1,-2,...,-∞, calculated by the following formula: x=a s -a n Among them, a s is the year to which the weight is calculated; a n is the current year; Normalize all initial weights so that the sum of the weights is 1 and use the following formula to calculate: Among them, k x is the time weight of the target year finally obtained; The internal evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual internal evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula: S x =∑C j m ij Among them, S x The supplier's annual internal evaluation index score; C j is the score of supplier internal evaluation index j; m ij is the weight of internal evaluation index j of supplier i, and ∑ j m ij =1; The external evaluation index total score calculation module calculates the supplier's annual external evaluation index score based on the input data, using the following formula: E=∑E l m l Among them, E is the supplier's annual external evaluation index score; E l is the score of supplier external evaluation index l; m l is the weight of the supplier's external evaluation index l, and ∑ l m l =1; The cooperation time added value calculation module calculates the cooperation time added value based on the input data, using the following formula for calculation: F=nB Among them, F is the added value of the supplier's cooperation time, and F≤M, M is the threshold of the added value of the cooperation time; n is the number of years of cooperation; B is the preset value added for each year of cooperation; The supplier evaluation analysis report generation module first calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the input data, and then obtains the supplier's ranking and grade based on the comprehensive score to form a supplier evaluation analysis report; The supplier's comprehensive score S is calculated using the following formula: S=∑S x k x +Fm f +ΣE l m l Among them, m f The weight of adding value to the duration of cooperation.

8. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Step S4 specifically includes the following steps: S41. Obtain the suppliers that need to be scored and screened this time from the supplier scoring database obtained in step S2 to obtain an initial supplier scoring data set; S42. Compare the initial supplier rating data set with the preset bad record list, filter out bad suppliers, and obtain the supplier rating data set; S43. Input the supplier rating data set into the decision analysis model obtained in step S3 to obtain a comprehensive rating of the supplier.

9. The centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S5, the supplier is judged according to the comprehensive score of the supplier obtained in step S4, specifically: For the comprehensive rating of suppliers, there are three preset cutoff values: T1, T2, and T3; When the supplier's comprehensive score S ≥ T1, the supplier is judged to be grade A; When the supplier's comprehensive score T2≤S<T1, the supplier is judged to be grade B; When the supplier's comprehensive score T3≤S<T2, the supplier is judged to be grade C; When the supplier's comprehensive score S is less than T3, the supplier is judged to be grade D and is deemed unqualified.

10. A system for implementing the centralized procurement supplier intelligent judgment method according to any one of claims 1 to 9, characterized in that: It includes supplier historical data acquisition module, comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module, decision analysis model construction module, supplier scoring module and supplier judgment module; The supplier historical data acquisition module acquires historical cooperative supplier data, builds a supplier database, and uploads the data to the comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module; The comprehensive evaluation index standard scoring module constructs comprehensive evaluation index standards based on the received data, scores the suppliers in the supplier database, obtains the supplier scoring database and uploads the data to the decision analysis model building module; The decision analysis model building module builds a decision analysis model based on the received data and uploads the data to the supplier rating analysis module; The supplier rating analysis module calculates the supplier's comprehensive score based on the received data and the supplier rating database using a decision analysis model, and uploads the data to the supplier judgment module; The supplier judgment module completes the judgment on the supplier based on the received data.

Images