题目内容
某招标公司受招标人委托对新建写字楼(含裙楼)的乘客电梯进行公开招标，招标范围包括电梯的制造、安装、调试、验收和5年的保修等。该写字楼主楼45层，高约140m。主楼电梯额定速度不低于6m/s，数量为8台；裙楼电梯额定速度不低于1.75m/s，数量为16台。主楼电梯需要投标人具备特种设备制造和安装改造维修许可证A级，具备相应资格条件的供应商数量刚超过3家；裙楼电梯需要投标人具备的制造和安装改造维修许可证等级较低，具备资格条件的供应商数量较多。 招标公司准备在写字楼工程施工开始后组织电梯招标，并建议将主楼电梯和裙楼电梯合成1个标包或分成2个标包进行招标。 某大型公共建筑设计招标，招标人有两种方案设想，方案一：首先组织建筑设计方案招标，确定建筑设计方案，然后按照确定的建筑设计方案招标选择建筑施工图设计单位：方案二：组织一次招标，同时确定建筑设计方案和建筑施工图纸设计单位。试结合两种方案的特点，并根据全面客观评价和选择最优目标的要求，指出本项目比较实用的方案和理由。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A dispute over proposed commercial development at the foot of Mount Hopkins in southern Arizona threatens to end years of peaceful coexistence between astronomers and land developers in the state. Astronomers have opposed the project, fearing that light pollution will degrade viewing conditions at the Whipple Observatory, the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) and other facilities in the mountain. Fairfield Homes, a developer based in Green Valley, Arizona, wants to expand plans for low-density housing to include commercial development. It has threatened astronomers with a lawsuit if they continue to speak out against the project. Fairfield’s application for commercial development on the 5,200 acre Canoa Ranch site 20 miles south of Tucson was scheduled to go before a local board of supervisors at a public hearing this week. In a letter sent two days before Christmas, Frank Cassidy, an attorney for Fairfield, accused astronomers from the Whipple Observatory and other institutions of lobbying against the project "under the guise of providing scientific information". Cassidy claimed that, because the Smithsonian Institution observatories are publicly owned, interfering with Fairfield’s $900 million development could amount to a government "taking" of private property, for which opponents of the project would be liable. Cassidy’s letter threatened the institutions as well as individuals—including Robert firshner of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and MMT observatory director Craig Foltz with "appropriate legal action" unless they stopped their "lobbying" against the Canoa Ranoa Ranch application. His estimates were in some cases six to seven times higher than the developers, based on different assumptions about the types and amount of commercial lots that would produce. Frank Thomson, a planning consultant to Fairfield, says his client is sensitive to astronomers’ worries, and is committed to producing no more light pollution than would result from the already approved plan for 1,200 homes. But Luginbuhl and other astronomers say verbal promise counts for little. The issue will undoubtedly come up later this year when a committee representing both astronomers and developers, cochaired by Don Davis of the Tucson Planetary Science Institute, takes up the matter of revised lighting codes for the Tucson area, which also have been revised several times since being established in 1972. Thomson says it is "unfortunate" that tensions have escalated over Canoa Ranch after more than 10 years of astronomers and developers working out their differences in a friendlier way. But astronomers were irritated by what Smithsonian attorney James Wilson called Cassidy’s "inappropriate attempt to intimidate," and what a Tucson newspaper termed "Fairfield’s crude threat". Astronomers were annoyed by
A company in Boston, AdelaVoice, has invented a smart-phone application called StartTalking that allows drivers to send and receive text messages while driving. Unfortunately, however, such a hands-free texting device will not reduce the likelihood of an accident while texting. To date, 30 states have outlawed texting while driving. The new smart-phone application is obviously designed to get around such laws and allow the drivers to text while driving. However, the device is unlikely to reduce accidents for the same reason that the use of hands-free cell phones apparently has not reduced auto accidents. As I explain in an earlier post, it is not the use of the hands while driving that is likely contributing to the greater likelihood of accidents while talking on the cell phone or texting, but the use of the brain for an evolutionarily novel, "unnatural" behavior of communicating with a person who is not present. Hands-free devices do not alter the evolutionary novelty of such communication, so they are not likely to be less cognitively taxing than hand-held cell phones. Because there was no such thing as communicating with someone who is not present within the earshot in the ancestral environment, all such communications are evolutionarily novel. And the human brain, designed for and adapted to the conditions of the ancestral environment, has inherent difficulty comprehending and dealing with all such communications. It likely finds such tasks cognitively demanding and taxing, and a greater portion of their cognitive energy and attention will have to be diverted from the (equally evolutionarily novel) task of driving a car to the cell phone conversation. The human brain likely finds it too cognitively demanding to carry on two such evolutionarily novel tasks simultaneously and efficiently. If the hands-free texting application reduces the likelihood of accidents at all, it is probably not because it is hands-free, but because it allows the users to use (evolutionarily familiar) spoken language, rather than (evolutionarily novel) written language, in the communication. If we want truly to reduce auto accidents as a result of cell phone conversations, we shouldn’t be using hands-free devices, because they do not do anything to alter the evolutionary novelty of the conversation. As I mention in the earlier post, we should develop a technology that allows us to project a holographic image of the person we are speaking to inside the car. Short of that, we should encourage people to use the new iPhone application Facetime that allows them to see the other person on the phone. Using Facetime should somewhat fool their brain into thinking that the person they are communicating with is immediately present, especially if they are less intelligent. We learn from the passage that
A company in Boston, AdelaVoice, has invented a smart-phone application called StartTalking that allows drivers to send and receive text messages while driving. Unfortunately, however, such a hands-free texting device will not reduce the likelihood of an accident while texting. To date, 30 states have outlawed texting while driving. The new smart-phone application is obviously designed to get around such laws and allow the drivers to text while driving. However, the device is unlikely to reduce accidents for the same reason that the use of hands-free cell phones apparently has not reduced auto accidents. As I explain in an earlier post, it is not the use of the hands while driving that is likely contributing to the greater likelihood of accidents while talking on the cell phone or texting, but the use of the brain for an evolutionarily novel, "unnatural" behavior of communicating with a person who is not present. Hands-free devices do not alter the evolutionary novelty of such communication, so they are not likely to be less cognitively taxing than hand-held cell phones. Because there was no such thing as communicating with someone who is not present within the earshot in the ancestral environment, all such communications are evolutionarily novel. And the human brain, designed for and adapted to the conditions of the ancestral environment, has inherent difficulty comprehending and dealing with all such communications. It likely finds such tasks cognitively demanding and taxing, and a greater portion of their cognitive energy and attention will have to be diverted from the (equally evolutionarily novel) task of driving a car to the cell phone conversation. The human brain likely finds it too cognitively demanding to carry on two such evolutionarily novel tasks simultaneously and efficiently. If the hands-free texting application reduces the likelihood of accidents at all, it is probably not because it is hands-free, but because it allows the users to use (evolutionarily familiar) spoken language, rather than (evolutionarily novel) written language, in the communication. If we want truly to reduce auto accidents as a result of cell phone conversations, we shouldn’t be using hands-free devices, because they do not do anything to alter the evolutionary novelty of the conversation. As I mention in the earlier post, we should develop a technology that allows us to project a holographic image of the person we are speaking to inside the car. Short of that, we should encourage people to use the new iPhone application Facetime that allows them to see the other person on the phone. Using Facetime should somewhat fool their brain into thinking that the person they are communicating with is immediately present, especially if they are less intelligent. According to Paragraph 4, the human brain
A dispute over proposed commercial development at the foot of Mount Hopkins in southern Arizona threatens to end years of peaceful coexistence between astronomers and land developers in the state. Astronomers have opposed the project, fearing that light pollution will degrade viewing conditions at the Whipple Observatory, the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) and other facilities in the mountain. Fairfield Homes, a developer based in Green Valley, Arizona, wants to expand plans for low-density housing to include commercial development. It has threatened astronomers with a lawsuit if they continue to speak out against the project. Fairfield’s application for commercial development on the 5,200 acre Canoa Ranch site 20 miles south of Tucson was scheduled to go before a local board of supervisors at a public hearing this week. In a letter sent two days before Christmas, Frank Cassidy, an attorney for Fairfield, accused astronomers from the Whipple Observatory and other institutions of lobbying against the project "under the guise of providing scientific information". Cassidy claimed that, because the Smithsonian Institution observatories are publicly owned, interfering with Fairfield’s $900 million development could amount to a government "taking" of private property, for which opponents of the project would be liable. Cassidy’s letter threatened the institutions as well as individuals—including Robert firshner of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and MMT observatory director Craig Foltz with "appropriate legal action" unless they stopped their "lobbying" against the Canoa Ranoa Ranch application. His estimates were in some cases six to seven times higher than the developers, based on different assumptions about the types and amount of commercial lots that would produce. Frank Thomson, a planning consultant to Fairfield, says his client is sensitive to astronomers’ worries, and is committed to producing no more light pollution than would result from the already approved plan for 1,200 homes. But Luginbuhl and other astronomers say verbal promise counts for little. The issue will undoubtedly come up later this year when a committee representing both astronomers and developers, cochaired by Don Davis of the Tucson Planetary Science Institute, takes up the matter of revised lighting codes for the Tucson area, which also have been revised several times since being established in 1972. Thomson says it is "unfortunate" that tensions have escalated over Canoa Ranch after more than 10 years of astronomers and developers working out their differences in a friendlier way. But astronomers were irritated by what Smithsonian attorney James Wilson called Cassidy’s "inappropriate attempt to intimidate," and what a Tucson newspaper termed "Fairfield’s crude threat". What’s the author’s attitude towards the dispute
微信支付 
支付宝支付