| ²é¿´: 882 | »Ø¸´: 1 | ||
| ±¾Ìû²úÉú 1 ¸ö ·ÒëEPI £¬µã»÷ÕâÀï½øÐв鿴 | ||
pyj6009ͳæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
|
[ÇóÖú]
ÇóÓ¢Óï¸ßÊÖ°ïæ·ÒëÕâÒ»¶ÎÓ¢ÓСµÄ²»Ê¤¸Ð¼¤£¬½ð±Ò²»¶à£¬»¹ÇëÔÁÂ
|
|
|
3.10.10 CAPABILITY RESUBMISSION Part of the submission required for Infraco SSL was the inclusion of detail regarding the upgrade of the sub-surface lines. The initial submissions received from the bidders were satisfactory in terms of safety, but did not adequately demonstrate how the technical issues of upgrade would be dealt with. As a result, all bidders were asked to re-submit their plans for the upgrade projects. As all bidders for Infraco SSL had previously been involved in the evaluation process for the two deep tube Infracos, there were no significant issues regarding the safety of their submissions. |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
0703»¯Ñ§µ÷¼Á 348·Ö
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
³õÊÔ301£¬´úÂë085701»·¾³¹¤³Ì£¬±¾Ë¶Ò»Ö£¬ËÄÁù¼¶Òѹý£¬ÓжþÇøÒ»×÷£¬¹²·¢±í5ƪÂÛÎÄ
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸211£¬0703»¯Ñ§305·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
085600²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤301·ÖÇóµ÷¼ÁԺУ
ÒѾÓÐ17È˻ظ´
266·Ö£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸µçÆø¹¤³Ì£¬±¾¿Æ²ÄÁÏ£¬Çó²ÄÁÏרҵµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏ¿¼ÑÐÇóµ÷¼Á×Ü·Ö280
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
312Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´
327¿¼Ñе÷¼ÁÍÆ¼ö
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏ¿ÆÑ§Ó빤³Ì320Çóµ÷¼Á£¬080500
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
308Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
yuesenior
½ð³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
²Ý¸ù¶¼Ëã²»ÉÏ
- ·ÒëEPI: 35
- Ó¦Öú: 4 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1794.7
- É¢½ð: 61
- ºì»¨: 20
- Ìû×Ó: 350
- ÔÚÏß: 111.3Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2245490
- ×¢²á: 2013-01-17
- רҵ: ÖÊÆ×·ÖÎö
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï ¡ï
pyj6009: ½ð±Ò+15, ·ÒëEPI+1, ¡ï¡ï¡ïºÜÓаïÖú, ºÜºÃ£¬¹ûÈ»ÊǸßÊÖ£¬ÎÒÊÇ·µÄÍ·ÔÎ 2013-02-23 21:49:55
pyj6009: ½ð±Ò+15, ·ÒëEPI+1, ¡ï¡ï¡ïºÜÓаïÖú, ºÜºÃ£¬¹ûÈ»ÊǸßÊÖ£¬ÎÒÊÇ·µÄÍ·ÔÎ 2013-02-23 21:49:55
|
ÔÙͶ±êÄÜÁ¦ µØÏÂÏßÉý¼¶¹¤×÷µÄϸ½ÚÊÇInfraco SSL ±êÊéµÄÄÚÈÝÖ®Ò»£¬Í¶±êÕßÃdzõ´ÎÌá½»µÄ±êÊé´Ó°²È«ÐÔÉÏÀ´Ëµ»¹ÊÇÁîÈËÂúÒâµÄ£¬µ«Î´Äܳä·ÖչʾÈçºÎÓ¦¶ÔÉý¼¶¹¤×÷Öеļ¼ÊõÎÊÌâ¡£Æä½á¹ûÊÇÒªÇóËùÓÐͶ±êÕßÖØÐÂÌá½»Éý¼¶ÏîÄ¿¼Æ»®¡£ ÕâЩͶ±êÕßÒÔǰÒѾ¾Àú¹ýÁ½¸öÉî¹Ü InfracosµÄÆÀ¹À¹ý³Ì£¬Òò´ËÈç¹ûÔÙ´ÎÌá½»±êÊ飬°²È«ÐÔÉϲ»»áÓдóµÄÎÊÌâ¡£ ¸çÃÇ£¬ÂúÒâ·ñ£¿ ÂúÒâµÄ»°£¬¸ø¸ö ÓÅÐã |

2Â¥2013-02-22 13:25:48














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥