Nan Fang Du Shi Bao·2025-05-19 14:50Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the qualification requirements for a bidding project by China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) raises questions about the integrity of public procurement processes, particularly regarding the legitimacy of non-official certificates used as qualifications [2][3][4]. Group 1: Bidding Project Details - A bidding project for brand communication services by China Petroleum Lubricating Oil Company was awarded to Shanghai Yunhong Advertising Co., Ltd. for approximately 2.14 million yuan [2][4]. - The qualification requirement for bidders included a non-official certificate for "Internet news information editing and publishing service," which has sparked debate over its validity compared to the official "Internet News Information Service License" issued by the State Internet Information Office [3][4][6]. Group 2: Qualification Certificate Controversy - The questioned certificate can be purchased online for 1,500 yuan, raising concerns about its authenticity and the potential for misuse in the bidding process [3][14][20]. - The certificate's issuing organizations, such as the "China Small and Medium Enterprises Integrity Alliance," lack clear official recognition, leading to confusion about their legitimacy [9][19]. Group 3: Regulatory Framework - According to China's regulations, only news organizations or those supervised by news propaganda departments can apply for the official "Internet News Information Service License," which is valid for three years [6][8]. - The lack of clarity in the bidding documents regarding the required qualifications may have allowed for the acceptance of non-official certificates, potentially undermining the procurement process [12][13]. Group 4: Industry Practices - Other state-owned enterprises typically require the official "Internet News Information Service License" in their bidding documents, highlighting a deviation in CNPC's approach [6][7]. - The use of non-official qualifications in public procurement could lead to unfair advantages and questions about the transparency of the bidding process [12][21].