Article 34 of the Construction Law and Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law stipulate that bidders shall not bid at a price lower than the cost price. Article 10 of the Regulations on the Quality Management of Construction Projects (2019 Amendment) stipulates that the contractor shall not force the contractor to bid at a price lower than the cost. However, in the increasingly fierce market competition, bidders compete to lower the bid price to achieve the winning result. However, after the project is won the bid, when the project is unprofitable due to winning the bid at a low price, the contract is broken and the contract is refused, or the contract is terminated halfway, or the quality of the project is reduced; On July 18, 2022, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and other departments jointly issued the "Several Opinions on Strictly Implementing the Laws and Regulations on Tendering and Bidding to Further Regulate the Behavior of Tendering and Bidding Entities" (Fa Gai Regulation Gui [2022] No. 1117), requiring strict implementation of tendering and bidding laws and regulations and further standardizing the behavior of all parties involved in tendering and bidding. Among them, the review of the bid evaluation report clearly requires that the abnormally low bids and serious unbalanced bids that may be lower than the cost or affect the performance of the contract must be analyzed and judged.
This paper collates and analyzes the rules for handling contracts that win bids at low prices in judicial practice, in order to guide the tendering and bidding parties to have a clearer understanding and cognition of the nature of low-price bidding, so as to play a role in regulating the bidding and bidding market and promoting the benign development of the bidding and bidding market to a certain extent.
1. Provisions of local judicial documents on "winning bids below cost".
There is no unified adjudication rule in judicial practice for determining the nature of a contract that is lower than the cost price. The author searched the judicial documents of courts across the country for the provisions on claiming the invalidity of the contract or advocating the adjustment of the contract price after winning the bid at a low price, mainly including the following:
1. Article 24 of the Minutes of the National Civil Trial Work Conference (Fa Ban [2011] No. 442) stipulates that a construction contract concluded in accordance with the minimum bid of the project construction cost in accordance with the illegal bidding forms such as "winning the bid at the lowest price" shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the provisions of Article 41 (2) of the Tendering and Bidding Law.
2. Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court's Guidelines for the Trial of Construction Contract Cases (2010) stipulates that "black and white contracts" are regulated. If the construction contract separately concluded by the parties for the same construction project is inconsistent with the substantive content of the winning contract that has been filed, the winning contract shall be used as the basis for settling the project price. If the project price agreed in the bid-winning contract is lower than the cost price, the construction contract of the construction project shall be invalid.
3. Article 30 of the Opinions of the Shandong Provincial High People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Construction Contracts, stipulates that in the trial of disputes over arrears of construction projects, the settlement shall generally be made in the form of the project cost and settlement agreed by the parties in the contract; If the agreed price is not much different from the market price or the agreed price is unfavorable to one party, but due to the party's poor management or subjective judgment errors in the performance of the contract, its own interests are lost, and the party claims to change the project cost, it should not be supported.
4. Article 9 of the Guiding Opinions of the Anhui Provincial High People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Construction Contracts stipulates that if the contractor undertakes to make a substantial concession on the project price in respect of the bidding project, it is a substantial change in the project price and shall be deemed invalid;
5. Article 6 of the Fujian Provincial High People's Court's "Answers to Difficult Questions Concerning the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Construction Contracts": Q: If the price agreed in the construction contract is significantly lower than the project quota standard and has exceeded a certain reasonable range, can the parties claim that the agreed price is invalid on the grounds that the contract price clearly violates the quota, or claim to revoke or modify the contract on the grounds that it is obviously unfair?
Answer: the project cost quota standard does not belong to the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, therefore, the price agreed in the construction contract is lower than the project quota standard, which does not lead to the invalidity of the agreement. If a party claims to revoke or modify the contract on the grounds that the price agreed in the contract is too low and thus obviously unfair, it shall be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law.
6. Article 6 of the Guiding Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Construction Project Contracts (2010 Revision) issued by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court stipulates that for projects that must be tendered in accordance with Article 3 of the Tendering and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China, if the contractor has evidence to prove that the project price is lower than the cost price and claims that the contract is invalid, it shall be supported.
If the contractor has evidence that the project price is lower than the cost price or the contractor has a major misunderstanding of the quantity of the project in the lump sum contract, and the contractor requests to revoke or modify the contract within the statutory time limit, it shall be supported.
Judging from the above-mentioned judicial documents, if the project price agreed in the bid-winning contract is lower than the cost price, how to determine the validity of the bid-winning contract is not completely unified in judicial practice.
2. Criteria for determining "winning the bid at a low price".
In judicial practice, the contractor generally takes the bidding control price as the reference standard, and claims that the bidding price is lower than the cost price, which is a low-price winning bid, and the winning contract is invalid. The tenderer shall prepare the highest bidding limit of the bidding project in accordance with the relevant pricing basis and methods issued by the national or provincial and industry construction authorities, as well as the proposed bidding documents and the bidding bill of quantities, combined with the specific conditions of the project. The construction project invested by state-owned funds shall be subject to the bidding of the bill of quantities, and the bidding control price shall be prepared. If the bidder's bid price is higher than the bidding control price, its bid shall be rejected. The bidding control price reflects the average level of the society, and provides a reference basis for the tenderer to judge whether the lowest bid price is lower than the average cost of the society.
On June 2, 2022, the Anhui Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development issued the "Notice on Effectively Strengthening the Management of Bidding and Bidding Activities for Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects in the Province", stipulating that in 2022, the bidding prices of housing construction, rail transit, municipal infrastructure and other projects (excluding general contracting projects) in the province will be lower than 90%, 88% and 85% of the bidding control price respectively, as an abnormally low price.
Although some local housing and urban-rural development departments have made provisions on abnormally low prices, there is an increasing consensus in judicial practice on how to determine the standard below the cost price, and the following determination rules are adopted:
1. "Below cost" refers to the individual cost that is lower than the bidder's need to complete the bidding project, rather than the average social cost.
There is a difference between the individual cost of the enterprise and the average cost of the society, and the average cost of the society is not the same as the individual cost of the enterprise. If the individual cost of the construction enterprise is lower than the average cost of the society, it can have an advantage in the market competition. It is not possible to simply use the average social cost as the reason for winning the bid at a low price, nor can it be simply and crudely determined to be lower than the cost by a certain percentage of the bid control price.
In the case of the Supreme People's Court (2014) Min Shen Zi No. 848 Application for Retrial of a Construction Contract Dispute, the Supreme People's Court held that the "below cost" referred to in Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law refers to the individual cost that is lower than the bidder's expenses to complete the bidding project. The management level, technical ability and conditions of each bidder are different, even if the same bidding project is completed, its individual cost can not be exactly the same, and there is a difference between the individual cost and the average cost of the industry, which is a normal phenomenon in the market economy environment.
In the (2020) Jing 0109 Min Chu No. 683 construction project construction contract dispute, A Construction Engineering claimed that the winning bid price of the "Construction Contract for the Construction of New Apartment Buildings of Project 6156" signed by the two parties on February 8, 2017 was 13,865,705.32 yuan, which was lower than the cost price of the project, which violated Articles 33 and 41 of the Bidding Law and the Regulations for the Implementation of the Bidding Law Article 51, and the project involved in the case does not apply to the lump-sum contract in accordance with the law, and the contract shall be confirmed as invalid. The plaintiff participated in the bidding of more than 140 new apartment construction projects of the 6156 project tendered by the defendant, and the seven judges of the bid evaluation committee signed on December 17, 2016 to confirm that the plaintiff's bid price was seriously unbalanced, the materials in the bidding list were designated brands, the cost price of enterprise procurement was much higher than the bid price, and the bid price of the bid list was lower than the cost price of enterprise market procurement.
The court has fully discussed the individual costs of the enterprise. The court held that the contents recorded in the "Bid Letter", "Appendix to the Bid Letter", "Price Reduction Explanation Letter" and "Bid Quotation Profit Value Table" prepared and submitted by Construction Engineering A at the time of bidding showed that Construction Engineering A had fully considered various factors affecting the price of the project involved in the case, such as labor, materials and machinery, and had fully confirmed that the bidding quotation was within its cost control in combination with the long-term accumulated experience in similar projects, as well as the comprehensive inquiry of labor, materials and machinery in the market. Combined with A construction engineering for example, there are many competitors in the bidding, the competition is fierce, it is to enter the market, open up the market, win the market, and the quotation reduces the profit and management fee on the basis of ensuring the cost; the project is not difficult to build a new residential project, and the company has a long-term cooperation with experienced labor company team, which can ensure the quality, progress and safety; the main materials of the project such as steel bars, concrete, doors and windows, waterproofing, thermal insulation, floor tiles, valves, Pipe fittings, etc., the company has long-term cooperation with strategic partners, can take the goods at the internal price, under the premise of ensuring quality, sign a contract slightly lower than the average market price; The Tendering and Bidding Law does not prevent enterprises from improving their management level and economic efficiency, and reducing individual costs to enhance their market competitiveness.
2. The appraisal conclusion made by the appraisal agency based on the average cost of the society cannot be used as the basis for determining that the bidder's bid price is lower than the individual cost of the enterprise.
In judicial practice, it often happens that the contractor applies for judicial appraisal, on the one hand, it proves that it has won the bid at a price lower than the cost price through the appraisal opinion, and on the other hand, it requires the project price to be settled in accordance with the appraisal opinion.
In the case of the Supreme People's Court (2014) Min Shen Zi No. 848 Application for Retrial of a Construction Contract Dispute, the Supreme People's Court held that the basis for Company A's claim that the price agreed in the contract was lower than its cost price was the average social cost stated in the Project Cost Consultation Report issued by the third-party company, and the average social cost could not be equated with the individual cost of Company A.
Another example: Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court (2014) Su Min Zhong Zi No. 0367 Su Min Zhong Zi No. 0367 in the second-instance civil judgment of the construction contract dispute between Company A and Company B, the Jiangsu Provincial High Court held that: on the issue of cost, Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that bidders shall not bid at a price lower than the cost. The cost here should refer to the individual cost of the enterprise. The appraisal conclusion issued by the cost office is prepared in accordance with the project quota standard and price information issued by the competent department of the construction industry, and the quota and price information reflect the average social cost of the construction market. The individual cost of the enterprise is related to the scale and management level of the enterprise, and the higher the management level, the lower the individual cost, so the appraisal conclusion issued by the cost firm cannot be used as the basis for determining that the bid price of Company A is lower than the individual cost of the enterprise.
3. The increase in the project price caused by the increase in the amount of work caused by design changes, etc., does not fall within the scope of the determination of "below cost price".
Under the general construction contracting model, the contractor may request to negotiate the change and adjust the project price due to the increase in the project quantity caused by the design change, but the increase in the project price caused by such negotiation change does not fall within the scope of the determination of "winning the bid at a low price".
For example, in the case of (2015) Min Shen Zi No. 3477, Company A and Company B applied for a retrial of a construction contract dispute, on the issue of whether the project cost agreed in the contract was lower than the construction cost. The Supreme People's Court held that the contract price involved in the construction contract was 25.2 million yuan. In the process of performing the construction contract, there are situations where the amount of work increases or decreases due to changes in the scope of construction, design changes, etc. Therefore, Company A should provide evidence to prove that the scope of construction has not changed during the performance of the contract, and the design of the project has not changed, resulting in a substantial increase in the quantity of the project, and in this case, the actual cost of the project is significantly different from the cost agreed in the contract, and it is higher than the construction cost calculated according to the market conditions. However, Company A did not provide the above evidence. Although Company A argued that the amount of the project cost entrusted by the parties was much higher than the project price agreed in the contract, because it did not provide evidence to show that the difference in the amount of the price was the price difference that occurred when the construction scope and quantity agreed in the contract were not changed, the court was unable to judge whether the project cost agreed in the contract was lower than the construction cost price, and the result should be borne by Company A, and Company A's argument that the contract price was lower than the construction cost was not established.
3. Determination of the validity of the contract at a price lower than the cost price
After winning the bid at a low price, the contractor claimed that the winning contract was invalid because it violated Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law on the basis that the winning bid price was lower than the cost price, and demanded that the project price be settled according to the facts, resulting in a dispute between the two parties. With regard to the determination of the validity of a contract in which the contractor claims to win the bid at a price lower than the cost price, there are mainly the following adjudication views:
1. The first view is that a contract below the cost price is invalid.
As stipulated in the judicial documents mentioned in this article, some views hold that a contract that wins the bid at a price lower than the cost price shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the provisions of the Tendering and Bidding Law. For example, the Supreme People's Court (2015) Min Ti Zi No. 142 Case of Trial Supervision of a Construction Contract Dispute between Company A and Company B, on the issue of determining the validity of the Construction Contract of the Construction Project. The Supreme People's Court held that, according to Article 41 of the Tendering and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China, the bid of the winning bidder shall meet one of the following conditions: (1) it can meet the comprehensive evaluation criteria specified in the bidding documents to the greatest extent; (2) it can meet the substantive requirements of the bidding documents, and the evaluated bid price is the lowest; except that the bid price is lower than the cost. Therefore, the key to judging the validity of the Construction Contract signed between Company B and Company A lies in whether the bid price of the project involved in the case is lower than the cost price. Company A filed an application with the court in the first instance, requesting that a judicial appraisal agency be entrusted to appraise the cost of the overall project involved in the case and the cost of the completed project. After the court of first instance approved, the cost company was entrusted to conduct the corresponding appraisal in accordance with the law. The cost company issued a total of four plans of the project cost of the "project cost appraisal", the main body of the appraisal agency is qualified, the appraisal object is clear, the procedure is legal, and the identified project is consistent with the objective facts. According to the provisions of Article 71 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the "Project Cost Appraisal" of the four plans made by the cost company has probative force.
According to the analysis of the "Project Cost Appraisal" (Plan 1) issued by the cost company for the project involved in the case without profits, even if the labor profit that Company A should obtain is not considered, the difference between the cost of the project and the amount of the project agreed in the "Construction Contract" signed by the two parties exceeds 20%, that is, the bid price of the project involved in the case is much lower than the cost price, which does not meet the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 41 of the Bidding and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China. In view of the fact that the winning bid price agreed in the Construction Contract signed between Company A and Company B was much lower than the cost determined in the Project Cost Appraisal, which violated the above-mentioned legal provisions, and that the Contract for Construction Projects signed by Company A and Company B for the project involved in the case should be invalid in accordance with Article 52 (5) of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "the contract that violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations is invalid".
For the invalidity of the contract when the contract is determined by winning the bid at a low price, there are also different adjudication results in judicial practice: one is to determine the project price according to the judicial appraisal opinion, adjust the project price, and support the contractor's litigation claim for adjusting the project price; Another view is that after the construction contract is invalid, according to the provisions of the Interpretation of the Construction Contract, the discount compensation shall be made with reference to the contract. The spirit embodied in this provision is to respect the true intention of the parties to the contract, that is, although the contract is found to be invalid, but the project has been completed and accepted, if the settlement and payment of the project price is not made with reference to the contract, it is contrary to the basic principle of civil law of good faith.
2. The second view is that if the contract is invalid after winning the bid at a price lower than the cost price, it will not be supported.
In judicial practice, if the contractor claims that the contract is invalid at a price lower than cost after winning the bid and requests an adjustment of the project price, more and more cases do not support the contractor's claim, mainly including the following adjudication views:
At the same time, the bidding and bidding law does not prevent enterprises from improving their management level and economic efficiency, and reducing individual costs to enhance their market competitiveness. On the basis of the bidder's independent quotation and winning the bid for the construction, during the construction process, the project price agreed in the contract was lower than the cost price, claiming that the contract was invalid, lacked factual and legal basis, and also violated the principle of good faith.
At the same time, the tendering and bidding law prohibits bidders from bidding at a price lower than the cost, and its purpose is to regulate the bidding market and prevent unfair competition between bidders. As an independent civil subject, the bidder should be able to rationally judge their own civil behavior and its consequences, and can consider whether to bid according to their actual situation, if they think that the tenderer's bidding control price is too low to make a profit, they can choose not to participate in the bidding, and they are not in a situation where they have no choice, and after winning the bid, they change the settlement price in the form of litigation, which is out of the original intention of reaching an agreement and violates the principle of good faith.
The bidder also promises in the bidding documents that the bidding quotation has included all the work content, responsibilities and obligations of the bidding scope specified in the bidding documents, and the bidder must have budgeted the project involved in the case, and the bidding quotation is the scope of the bidder's independent calculation.
After winning the bid, the contractor claimed that the Construction Contract was invalid on the grounds that the project price was lower than the cost price, which violated the principle of good faith.
In addition, in terms of the allocation of the burden of proof, if the winning bidder claims that it is lower than the cost price, it shall provide evidence to prove that the bid price is lower than the cost price, otherwise it cannot bear the adverse consequences due to the proof presented. If the bidder cannot provide evidence to prove that the bid price is lower than the cost price, that is, the individual cost of the enterprise, the claim of the winning bidder will not be supported.
Another example is the (2020) Jing 0109 Min Chu No. 683 construction project construction contract dispute case, regarding the validity of the "6156 Project New Apartment Building Construction Project Construction Contract" signed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the court held that Article 33 of the "Bidding and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Bidders shall not bid at a price lower than the cost. The cost price of the construction project referred to in the law is different for different contracting enterprises, mainly depends on its cost management and control ability, lower than the cost should be understood as the individual production cost of the enterprise, the individual cost of the enterprise is related to the scale and management level of the enterprise, the higher the management level of the enterprise, the lower the individual cost, so the minimum cost of the project cost prepared by company A in the bidding process is not strictly speaking the basis for the determination of the cost price. For the cost issue, the bidder should pay attention to it and estimate it in advance in combination with its own ability. Bidders are not allowed to bid at a price lower than the cost price, the purpose of which is not to impose restrictions on their freedom to contract, but to maintain the quality and safety of construction products in accordance with the "Construction Law of the People's Republic of China".
To sum up, although there are different adjudication views in judicial practice on the determination of the validity of a contract that wins a bid at a low price, more and more judgments do not automatically determine that a contract is invalid because of the winning bid at a low price from the perspective of the legislative intent of the Construction Law and the Bidding and Bidding Law.
Although Article 33 and Item 2 of Article 41 of the Tendering and Bidding Law and Item 5 of Article 51 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Tendering and Bidding Law all stipulate that bidders shall not bid at a price lower than cost, the mandatory provisions in laws and administrative regulations should be distinguished between administrative mandatory provisions and effective mandatory provisions, and only the latter will affect the validity of the contract. To distinguish between these two types of provisions, one is to examine whether the laws and administrative regulations clearly stipulate that the violation of such provisions will lead to the invalidity of the contract, and the other is to examine whether the content of the contract in violation of the clause harms the national interest and the social public interest. Chapter 5 of the Tendering and Bidding Law in the "Legal Liability" section clearly stipulates the content of "invalid bidding", but Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law stipulates that "bidders shall not bid at a price lower than the cost", which does not belong to the invalid bidding as determined by the Tendering and Bidding Law. From the perspective of legislative intent, this provision is not a mandatory norm of validity, and the violation of this provision does not automatically lead to the invalidity of the contract.
In addition, from the literal interpretation, for Article 33 of the Tendering and Bidding Law, the first half of it stipulates that "bidders shall not bid at a price lower than the cost", and the second half stipulates that bidders "shall not deceive and win the bid in the name of others or in other ways". For these two parts, the Tendering and Bidding Law stipulates different legal consequences. The Tendering and Bidding Law does not stipulate any legal liability for bidders bidding with a price lower than the cost, but for the latter part, the Law clearly stipulates in Article 54 that "if a bidder bids in the name of another person or fraudulently obtains the winning bid by fraud, the winning bid shall be invalid." Since "winning the bid" indicates that the parties have reached an agreement on the offer and commitment, which is a sign of the formation of the contract, if the law clearly states that "the winning bid is invalid", it can be regarded as a negative evaluation of the validity of the contract. This difference shows that the legal evaluation of the two situations in this article is different in the Tendering and Bidding Law, otherwise the legal liability of the same article would not be deliberately distinguished. Whether it is clearly stipulated that the consequences of violating a certain type of provision will lead to the invalidity of the contract is one of the criteria for distinguishing between administrative norms and validity norms, so judging according to this standard, "bidders shall not bid at a price lower than cost" is not an effectiveness provision. Violation of this provision does not automatically invalidate the contract.
3. The third view is that the contract is obviously unfair and can be adjusted in accordance with the principle of fairness.
For example, the Supreme People's Court (2014) Min Shen Zi No. 786 applied for a retrial of a construction contract dispute between Company A and Company B. Company A held that the contract in this case stipulated a one-time death price, and the two parties should settle the project price based on the agreement, and the settlement price of the altered part of the project should be settled in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Construction Contracts, and in accordance with the pricing method or pricing standard issued by the local construction administrative department. The trial court erred in applying the law by calculating the entire contract price according to the above criteria. The Supreme People's Court held that on the issue of the calculation basis of the project involved in the case. First of all, judging from the amount of the project payment calculated by the appraisal agency entrusted by the court of first instance according to the two standards of "executing the contract" and "settling according to the actual situation", the difference is about 10 million yuan, which is obviously large compared with the winning bid price of the contract of 18.38 million yuan, which shows that the winning bid price of the contract involved in the case is obviously low. In addition, during the construction of the project involved in the case, due to many factors such as changes in market prices, materials, and a number of changes, the project price involved in the case will be calculated according to the original winning price, which will be obviously unfair. The court of first and second instance comprehensively considered the manner in which the contract involved in the case was terminated, the reasons for the formation of the dispute in this case, and the balance of interests of the employer and the contractor, and decided that the average value of the project cost made by the appraisal agency based on the above two standards should be used as the basis for calculating the project cost involved in the case in accordance with the principle of fairness, which was not improper. Company A's application for retrial on this ground could not be supported.
Fourth, the risk prevention suggestions for winning the bid at a low price
It can be seen from the above judicial rules on winning bids at low prices that there are still different understandings in judicial practice on the determination of the validity of the contract and the treatment of the project price for winning the bid at a low price. In order to effectively regulate the bidding market, from the perspective of the employer and to avoid the legal risk of winning the bid at a low price, the following suggestions are put forward:
1. The bid evaluation method adopts the comprehensive scoring method, and the lowest bid evaluation price method is carefully selected.
The comprehensive scoring method refers to the bid evaluation method in which the bidding documents meet all the substantive requirements of the bidding documents and the bidder with the highest evaluation score is the winning candidate according to the quantitative indicators of the evaluation factors. The setting of evaluation factors is related to the quality of the goods and services provided by the bidder, including the bidding price, technology or service level, performance ability, after-sales service, etc. Comprehensively review the qualifications, technical level, credibility, social influence, price and other factors of the enterprise, and determine the winning bidder. The bid evaluation method should carefully select the lowest price as much as possible, and it is recommended to use the comprehensive scoring method to determine the winning bidder.
2. Strengthen the management of bid evaluation, and if necessary, make invalid bids for low-price bids.
The bid evaluation committee shall analyze and judge whether the abnormally low bids and seriously unbalanced bids that may be lower than the cost or affect the performance of the contract. If it is considered that the bidder's quotation is significantly lower than the quotation of other bidders who have passed the conformity review, which may affect the quality of the product or cannot perform the contract in good faith, it shall be required to provide a written explanation within a reasonable time at the bid evaluation site, and submit relevant supporting materials if necessary;
3. Judicial adjudication should play a role in appropriately regulating the winning of bids at low prices.
As mentioned above, judicial practice has not unified the determination of the act of winning the bid at a low price, and there are situations where the winning bid at a low price is found to be invalid and the contract price is adjusted, which on the one hand makes the bidder who violates good faith profit from the act, and on the other hand, it damages the interests of other bidders. Judicial adjudication should appropriately regulate the behavior of winning bids at low prices, and play a role in regulating the bidding and bidding market and promoting the benign development of the bidding and bidding market.