GB/T 39683-2020. Specifications of credit grading and evaluation of administrative service intermediaries.
1 Scope
GB/T 39683 specifies the evaluation subject, evaluation indicators and methods, evaluation grades and symbols, and evaluation procedures for the credit grading and evaluation of administrative service intermediaries.
GB/T 39683 is applicable to intermediaries that provide services for handling statutory administrative service matters, and other relevant institutions may also refer to it.
2 Normative references
The following documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For all dated references, only the dated version applies to this document. For all undated references, the latest version (including all amendments) applies to this document.
GB/T 22117 Basic terms of credit
GB/T 22119 Business specifications for credit service agency integrity evaluation
3 Terms and definitions
The terms and definitions defined in GB/T 22117 and GB/T 22119 and the following terms and definitions apply to this document.
3.1
Administrative service intermediaries
Professional institutions registered in accordance with the law and using professional knowledge and technology to provide intermediary services for statutory administrative services.
Note: The administrative service intermediaries referred to in this standard include but are not limited to the following types: consulting and evaluation, drawing review, survey and design, measurement and testing, etc.
3.2
Evaluation committee
An organization established or commissioned by the relevant administrative agency for administrative services to conduct credit rating evaluation of intermediaries registered and filed with the relevant government authorities.
3.3
Evaluator
A person who upholds an objective, fair, conscientious and responsible professional spirit and possesses certain professional knowledge, skills and work experience.
4 Evaluation requirements
4.1 Evaluation principles
4.1.1 Fairness
The evaluation process should be based on objective facts, implement an avoidance system, and be free from interference and influence from all aspects to ensure that the evaluation results are reasonable and fair.
4.1.2 Applicability
Evaluation information and data are easy to collect and quantifiable, and the indicator system is complete, which truly reflects the service capabilities and credit level of the intermediary agency. ||
tt|| This standard specifies the evaluation subject, evaluation indicators and methods, evaluation levels and symbols, and evaluation procedures for the classification and evaluation of the credit rating of government service intermediaries. This standard applies to intermediaries that provide services for handling statutory government service matters, and other relevant institutions may also use it as a reference.

ICS01.040.03
National Standard of the People's Republic of China
GB/T39683—2020
Government Service Intermediaries
Specifications of credit grading and evaluation of administrative service intermediaries
Published on 2020-12-14
State Administration for Market Regulation
National Standardization Administration
Published
Implementation on 2021-04-01
Foreword
Introduction
Scope
Normative References
Terms and Definitions
Evaluation Requirements
Evaluation Subject||tt ||Evaluation indicators and methods
Evaluation levels and symbols
Evaluation procedures
Appendix A (Normative Appendix)
Appendix B (Normative Appendix)
References·
Credit evaluation indicators and scores
Credit evaluation veto items
GB/T39683—2020
Foreword
This standard was drafted in accordance with the rules given in GB/T1.1—2009. This standard was proposed and managed by the National Government Service Hall Service Standardization Working Group (SAC/SWG15). GB/T39683-—2020
Drafting units of this standard: Administrative Approval Service Bureau of Xintai City, Shandong Province, Anhui Craftsman Quality Standard Research Institute Co., Ltd., Shandong Provincial Market Supervision Administration, Anhui Tanxi County Data Resources Management Bureau, Anhui Hefei Municipal Government Service Management Bureau, Xiamen Standardization Research Institute The main drafters of this standard: Jin Yutong, Chen Aidong, Jia Bin, Dong Shouli, Ma Xiaoou, Wang Ruidong, Ren Qiliang, Xue Ya, Wang Shengli, Liu Xinde, Li Yinfa, Ding Zhiyu, Wang Shaowu, and Yin Xue. m
GB/T39683—2020
Introduction
In order to continuously deepen the reform of “delegating power, deregulating and improving services”, accelerate the transformation of government functions, promote the construction of a service-oriented government, comprehensively standardize the service behaviors of government service intermediaries, promote intermediaries to improve their service awareness and service capabilities, and create a fair, legal, convenient and transparent market environment, this standard is specially formulated in accordance with the Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Convenience of Approval and Service for the People and the Outline of the Plan for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020) issued by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council. This standard fully considers the particularity of the credit evaluation of government service intermediaries, establishes and improves an intermediary service credit evaluation system that is different from the traditional credit evaluation, and aims to strengthen the supervision of government service intermediaries, standardize service behaviors, and improve service quality and efficiency. This standard refers to and draws on relevant contents such as the Business Specifications for Integrity Evaluation of Credit Service Institutions and the Interim Measures for the Administration of the Credit Rating Industry, and conducts quantitative evaluation of the business capabilities, service quality and efficiency, and social satisfaction of intermediaries from four aspects: credit willingness, credit guarantee, credit performance, and credit results, and strives to be objective, fair, scientific, standardized, simple and easy to use. IV
1 ScopewwW.bzxz.Net
Government Service Intermediary Institutions
Credit Rating Classification and Evaluation Specification
GB/T39683-—2020
This standard specifies the evaluation subject, evaluation indicators and methods, evaluation grades and symbols, and evaluation procedures for the credit rating classification and evaluation of government service intermediary institutions
This standard applies to intermediary institutions that provide services for handling statutory government service matters, and other relevant institutions may also refer to and use normative reference documents
The following documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For any dated referenced document, only the dated version applies to this document. For any undated referenced document, its latest version (including all amendments) applies to this document. GB/T22117 Basic terms of credit
9 Credit service agency integrity evaluation business specifications GB/T22119
Terms and definitions
The terms and definitions defined in GB/T22117 and GB/T22119 and the following terms and definitions apply to this document 3.1
Administrative service intermediariesA professional agency that is registered in accordance with the law and uses professional knowledge and technology to provide intermediary services for statutory administrative services Note: The administrative service intermediaries referred to in this standard include but are not limited to the following types: consulting and evaluation, drawing review, survey and design, measurement and testing, etc.
evaluation committee
Evaluation committee
An organization established or commissioned by the relevant administrative agency for administrative services to evaluate the credit rating of intermediaries registered and filed with the relevant government departments.
Evaluator
evaluator
A person who upholds an objective, fair, conscientious and responsible professional spirit and has certain professional knowledge, skills and work experience. Evaluation requirements
4.1 Evaluation principles
4.1.1 Fairness
The evaluation process should be based on objective facts, implement an avoidance system, and be free from interference and influence from all aspects to ensure that the evaluation results are reasonable and fair. 4.1.2 Applicability
Evaluation information and data are easy to collect and quantify, and the indicator system is complete, which truly reflects the service capabilities and credit level of the intermediary institutions. GB/T39683—2020
4.1.3 Security
The evaluation work should adopt corresponding preventive measures to prevent the loss or leakage of the privacy information and credit information of the evaluation object, and ensure information security and the legitimate rights and interests of the evaluation object.
4.1.4 Timeliness
The evaluation results reflect the service capabilities and credit level of the intermediary institutions within an evaluation cycle, and serve as the basis for the credit evaluation of the intermediary institutions. 4.2
2 Evaluation cycle
The evaluation cycle of the credit rating of the intermediary institutions is one year, and dynamic adjustments should be made during the evaluation cycle based on the credit performance of the participating intermediary institutions.
4.3 Information Tracing
The credit information tracing period of the participating intermediary institutions is two years, and it is advisable to extend it by one year if there is a serious credit risk. 4.4
Determination of the Credit Rating of Newly Established Intermediary Institutions
Newly established or intermediary institutions that have not yet provided services will not be rated in this evaluation cycle. 4.5 Mutual Recognition of Credit Ratings of Intermediary Institutions in Different Regions
If intermediary institutions in different regions have carried out credit rating evaluation in accordance with or with reference to this standard, they shall mutually recognize the original credit rating after verification.
5 Evaluation Subject
5.1 Evaluation Committee
5.1.1 The Evaluation Committee shall be a permanent institution responsible for organizing and implementing the credit evaluation activities of government service intermediary institutions. 5.1.2 The Evaluation Committee shall be composed of more than 5 members (preferably an odd number), and the members shall be composed of government service management institutions, credit regulatory departments, intermediary industry regulatory departments and industry associations, etc., and the continuity of the members shall be maintained as much as possible. 5.1.3 The Evaluation Committee shall formulate a credit evaluation management system and work process, and clearly stipulate the rating results and follow-up ratings. 5.2 Evaluation Group
5.2.1 The Evaluation Committee shall set up an evaluation group, which shall consist of more than 5 evaluation personnel. 5.2.2 Responsibilities of the Evaluation Group:
Formulate a work plan;
1. Collect and organize the information and data of the participating intermediary institutions; Verify the authenticity of the materials and information;
Evaluate the intermediary institutions according to relevant standards and indicators; 1. Propose evaluation grade recommendations.
6 Evaluation Indicators and Methods
6.1 Evaluation Indicators
6.1.1 The evaluation indicator system includes three-level indicators. The first-level indicators shall include credit willingness, credit guarantee, credit performance and credit results. The credit 2
evaluation indicators are shown in Appendix A.
GB/T39683-—2020
6.1.2 Evaluation veto indicators are shown in Appendix B. If one of the situations listed in Appendix B occurs, the evaluation grade will be directly determined as C, and a bad credit record will be recorded.
6.2 Evaluation method
A combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods should be used. After qualitative evaluation of the participating intermediary institutions in accordance with Appendix B, quantitative scoring shall be performed according to the credit evaluation index system in Appendix A. Evaluation level and symbols
7.1 Grading
This evaluation system adopts a percentage system. The evaluation levels and symbols should be divided into five levels from high to low, namely AAA, AA, A, B, and C.
7.2 Basis for grading
7.2.1AAA: A score of 90 points or more (including 90 points) indicates an excellent credit record, strong credit ability, and almost no credit risk. 7.2.2AA: A score of 80 to 89 (including 80), indicating an excellent credit record, reliable credit ability, and basically no credit risk. 7.2.3A: A score of 70 to 79 (including 70), indicating a good credit record, relatively stable credit ability, and a small credit risk. 7.2.4B: A score of 60 to 69 (including 60), indicating an average credit record, average credit ability, and a certain credit risk. 7.2.5C: A score below 60, indicating a poor credit record, low credit ability, and a high credit risk. 8 Evaluation Procedures
8.1 Application
The participating intermediary institution shall submit a rating application to the Evaluation Committee within the specified time and submit the corresponding materials. 8.2 Acceptance
The Evaluation Committee shall confirm to the applicant intermediary institution within 1 working day that it has accepted the credit evaluation application submitted by the institution. 8.3 Preliminary Evaluation
8.3.1 The Evaluation Committee shall appoint an evaluation team to evaluate the intermediary institution in accordance with the evaluation work plan and the submitted materials, and make a credit rating recommendation.
8.3.2 The evaluation committee shall review the credit rating recommendation, make a review opinion and inform the participating intermediary institutions. 8.4 Publicity of results
The evaluation committee shall publicize the credit rating, and the publicity period is generally 10 working days. 8.5 Handling of objections
During the publicity period, if the participating intermediary institutions have any objections, they may submit a review application and submit review materials. Only one review application can be submitted within an evaluation cycle. Within 10 working days of receiving the review application, the evaluation committee shall organize a review, re-organize the evaluation if necessary, and put forward opinions on maintaining the original rating or adjusting the rating. 3
GB/T39683—2020
Final Evaluation
The evaluation committee shall determine the credit evaluation level based on the preliminary evaluation results and the handling of objections. 8.7
Results Release
The release of credit evaluation results shall comply with relevant laws and regulations, and the release methods include but are not limited to: the national integrated government service platform;
Credit China Network;
an intermediary information management platform;
——other authoritative media platforms with high social attention. 8.8 Application of Results
8.8.1 Take the credit evaluation results as the basis for differentiated hierarchical and classified supervision, reduce the number of inspections for intermediaries with AA level and above, and increase the number of inspections for intermediaries with B level and below. 8.8.2 Under the same conditions, encourage and guide service recipients to give priority to AAA and AA intermediaries for services, list B-level intermediaries as key supervision targets, and restrict C-level intermediaries from providing intermediary services in the government service hall at this level. 8.8.3 Establish a joint incentive mechanism for trustworthiness and a joint punishment mechanism for dishonesty. The credit evaluation results shall be pushed to administrative departments and supervisory agencies as the basis for administrative licensing, bidding, qualification management, supervision and inspection, policy support, commendation and reward, and disciplinary punishment. 8.8.4 Establish a system for repairing dishonesty and handling credit crises. Enterprises that repair dishonest behaviors in a timely manner shall not be deducted points. 8.9
Dynamic adjustment
During the evaluation cycle, if it is verified that the participating intermediary institutions have the following behaviors, the evaluation committee shall reduce their scores according to the subjective intention of the participating intermediary institutions, the severity of dishonest behaviors, and the degree of harm caused by dishonest consequences. Level processing: a)
Received administrative penalties of warning type;
Intermediary institutions and their branches were ordered to suspend production and business according to law; b)
Intermediary institutions and their branches were temporarily withheld their business licenses or qualification licenses according to law; c)
d) Legal representative was restricted from holding office; Unauthorized increase of charging items or repeated charging for items that have been implemented by government procurement services; e)
Non-standard practice system was rectified within a time limit, and the rectification was not in place after the time limit; Other behaviors that should be evaluated as credit deficiency. g)
8.10 Archiving of credit records
The evaluation committee shall archive credit evaluation information and materials in a timely manner and keep them for a long time. 4
Appendix A
(Normative Appendix)
Credit evaluation indicators and scores
Table A.1 specifies the indicators and scores of credit evaluation. Table A.1
First-level indicators
Credit willingness
(15 points)
Credit guarantee
(35 points)
Credit performance
(15 points)
Second-level indicators
Credit evaluation indicators and scores
Indicator item description
GB/T39683—2020
Score
The commitment content is complete and comprehensive, complies with relevant laws and regulations, and has intermediary Service industry-specific credit commitments
Service disclosure
Publicity and training
Professional qualifications
Service contracts
Credit files
Complaint handling
Credit management
Public utilities
Credit information
The scope of commitment includes institutions, personnel, matters, time limits and charges, etc. The format of the commitment letter is standardized and the content is clear
The public content is complete, at least including the statutory administrative approval intermediary services The name of the item, the basis for setting up, the service time limit, the service process, the application conditions and the charging standards are disclosed through various channels with strong accessibility, including but not limited to the service venue, the national integrated government service platform and the intermediary information management platform.
Information on activities such as publicity and training on credit laws and regulations, including the number of activities, the number of people and the effect.
Possess business licenses, business licenses related to the industry or compulsory certification certificates and other certificates.
Possess service venues and facilities and equipment that match the business volume and service items. Provide service personnel information and qualification information that complies with relevant regulations. The contract complies with the requirements of relevant laws and regulations and administrative approval-related documents. The contract content is standardized and should include the name of the administrative approval intermediary service item, the rights and obligations of both parties to the service and the dispute resolution methods. There should be no unequal terms. The credit file complies with the relevant laws and regulations and relevant requirements, and the file information is authentic, reliable, complete and traceable.
Credit files are managed in a classified manner: divided into institutions Credit files, personnel credit files and customer credit files should include paper files and electronic files. Establish customer complaint management system and process, assign dedicated personnel to be responsible for customer complaints, set up complaint channels such as telephone, mailbox, and mailbox, and provide complaint information truthfully. Participating intermediaries should establish a mechanism for punishing dishonesty and encouraging trustworthiness, and provide information such as rewards for trustworthiness and penalties for dishonesty. Participating intermediaries should establish a dishonesty repair system and a credit crisis management system, and provide relevant information. Status, including payment information for water, electricity, gas, communication and heating fees
Credit information such as bank loans and other financial loans3
GB/T39683—2020
First-level indicators
Credit performance
(15 points)
Credit results
(35 points)
Second-level indicators
Judicial information
Public support
Other certifications||tt| |Service quality and effectiveness
Good or bad reviews
Table A.1 (continued)
Explanation of indicators
Judicial information such as court litigation, rulings and executions Information on participation in supporting public welfare undertakings and volunteer services Information on credit management systems, quality management systems and other credit certification information When accepting services, intermediaries implement a one-time notification system and complete intermediary services within the promised time limit
The service results issued by the intermediaries are of qualified quality and can pass expert review or administrative department approval at one time
Strictly implement service charging standards, and there is no unauthorized increase in charging standards, addition of charging items and bundled charges
"One review per time", "one review per matter" and complaints from service recipients Daily supervision and evaluation by government service management agencies Comprehensive comments and administrative penalties by administrative departments, etc. Social evaluation by industry associations (academies), social groups and third-party evaluation agencies Score
Table B.1 stipulates the veto items in credit evaluation. Appendix B
(Normative Appendix)
Credit Evaluation Veto Items
Table B.1 Credit evaluation veto items
Veto items
Legality
Compliance
Authenticity
Security
Blacklist
Description
GB/T39683-—2020
Behavior of engaging in intermediary services without legal registration; engaging in intermediary services beyond the scope of qualification approval; engaging in intermediary services beyond the scope of statutory services under administrative licenses and other proven serious illegal acts; using fraud, coercion, bribery, collusion and other means to damage the interests of the client or others; using unfair competition to engage in intermediary services; Acts of soliciting business by means of competition or seeking improper benefits by taking advantage of professional convenience; acts of forcibly or in disguised form selling goods or providing services; illegal acts such as charging above the standard
Acts of providing false information materials, issuing false reports and certificates Acts of leaking customer information, recording or illegally using customer information to carry out publicity and other activities; acts of providing or leaking information, materials and commercial secrets that may endanger national security, public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others Intermediary service agencies listed in the corporate dishonesty blacklist Note: Veto items refer to items that the evaluation committee should veto when evaluating the credit of government service intermediary agencies. During the evaluation period, if the participating intermediary agencies have violations, laws or major dishonesty on the veto items, they will be directly classified as C-level. GB/T39683—2020
GB/T22116—2008
GB/T31950—2015
GB/T31952—2015
References
Methods for expressing corporate credit ratings
Corporate credit management system
Corporate credit file information specifications
People's Bank of China National Development and Reform Commission Ministry of Finance China Securities Regulatory Commission Order [2019 No. 5 Interim Measures for the Administration of the Credit Rating Industry
Tip: This standard content only shows part of the intercepted content of the complete standard. If you need the complete standard, please go to the top to download the complete standard document for free.