Comments on: The Beauty of Public RFPs….And Of Course The Ugly http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/ A construction industry blog that digs below bedrock Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:50:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mike Erickson http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-1048 Mike Erickson Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:10:10 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-1048 As a Project Manager with a public agency, I object to Barry's claim that "...public authorities either do not know or do not care to know what the actual cost of a project..." Public agencies do cost estimating in house or with consultants in order to set budgets for projects. Typically our estimating is close to or higher than the lowest bid number. Because a contractor blows a bid or bids just to keep the doors open is outside of our control. These are the two reasons we usually see extremely low bids. When this occurs we will first talk to the contractor and make sure he/she did not blow the bid. If they did, which has happened, we will allow them the opportunity to withdraw their bid. If they choose to stick with their price we will start checking on them. If the contractor is new to us, we will do some background checking on them to see if there are any prevailing wage issues, lawsuits, etc. We will also do this for the bidders subcontractors. We will also check out references or do more research on past project performance. We will weigh all the information gathered and decide a course of action. We want the most qualified contractor for a project too. I believe in the system we have. This is why I make sure contractors and subcontractors are submitting Certified Payroll, that waivers from subs and suppliers are correct, that a contractor carries the correct insurance, etc. If a contractor fails to do these things the next time they are low bidder they may not meet the requirements of "lowest qualified bidder". As a Project Manager with a public agency, I object to Barry’s claim that “…public authorities either do not know or do not care to know what the actual cost of a project…” Public agencies do cost estimating in house or with consultants in order to set budgets for projects. Typically our estimating is close to or higher than the lowest bid number. Because a contractor blows a bid or bids just to keep the doors open is outside of our control. These are the two reasons we usually see extremely low bids. When this occurs we will first talk to the contractor and make sure he/she did not blow the bid. If they did, which has happened, we will allow them the opportunity to withdraw their bid. If they choose to stick with their price we will start checking on them. If the contractor is new to us, we will do some background checking on them to see if there are any prevailing wage issues, lawsuits, etc. We will also do this for the bidders subcontractors. We will also check out references or do more research on past project performance. We will weigh all the information gathered and decide a course of action. We want the most qualified contractor for a project too.

I believe in the system we have. This is why I make sure contractors and subcontractors are submitting Certified Payroll, that waivers from subs and suppliers are correct, that a contractor carries the correct insurance, etc. If a contractor fails to do these things the next time they are low bidder they may not meet the requirements of “lowest qualified bidder”.

]]> By: Marc http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-963 Marc Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:06:31 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-963 Part of the problem is that we, the public, assume that least cost is best. Given the Vitruvium construciton triangle of cost, function and quality, it seems to me that a better idea would be to award public contracts to the bidder closest to the average cost of the bids. This would defeat low-balling once and for all. Part of the problem is that we, the public, assume that least cost is best. Given the Vitruvium construciton triangle of cost, function and quality, it seems to me that a better idea would be to award public contracts to the bidder closest to the average cost of the bids. This would defeat low-balling once and for all.

]]> By: Bruce Emory http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-962 Bruce Emory Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:43:43 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-962 I have been involved in public construction for 30 some years, the 5% strategy, is just a strategy, however it is certain suicide to take low sub contractor numbers when they are in error, ie lower than fair cost. We always call sub bidders whom appear to have made errors. The General contractor will be required to satisfy all of the sub contractors claims above and beyond the bid if the sub tier defaults. This includes remedy for defective work. I have seen many general contractors fail through the years. They typically under bid jobs. It has been my experience that it doesn't take much to find your company outside of a bond-able entity. I have also seen public agencies reject bidders, so it does happen. Normally the bidder fails due to the inability to bond, which is a direct result of inadequate financial performance. I have been involved in public construction for 30 some years, the 5% strategy, is just a strategy, however it is certain suicide to take low sub contractor numbers when they are in error, ie lower than fair cost. We always call sub bidders whom appear to have made errors. The General contractor will be required to satisfy all of the sub contractors claims above and beyond the bid if the sub tier defaults. This includes remedy for defective work. I have seen many general contractors fail through the years. They typically under bid jobs. It has been my experience that it doesn’t take much to find your company outside of a bond-able entity. I have also seen public agencies reject bidders, so it does happen. Normally the bidder fails due to the inability to bond, which is a direct result of inadequate financial performance.

]]> By: Jay Openshaw http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-960 Jay Openshaw Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:23:53 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-960 It always amuses me that we as contractors are always so sure that the low bidder has bid below his or her cost or “cheated” and we are convinced that there is no better way to build a project than the way we bid it. It has been proven to me again and again that this kind of thinking is often far from the truth as I have watched my competition build the projects on which I was defeated and occasionally learned that they in fact did have a better way. In fact, our own operations people have sometimes shown that there was a better way on projects on which we were successful as they have soundly beaten the bid margins through their own ingenuity and willingness to try a different way. Claims never prove to be a successful way to augment the bottom line and I do not believe that they are the intended salvation of most bidders. It is unfortunate that times such as these cause many contractors to become irresponsibly optimistic when bidding a project and/or ignore the risks inherent to the services we provide. However this should not be a reason to condemn the whole public procurement process and shed a good process that admittedly may need some tweaks in order to keep up with the times. It would be a short memory that could discount the corruption and shenanigans that were once commonplace in the public procurement process and make changes that might allow for these practices to resurface. This is a tough time to start in a tough business, but if it is any consolation to you I have recently faced competition of over 20 contractors, many of them new to the public work and simply trying to keep the doors open. These times force us to find a better way every day, challenging us to decide on a strategy and keep to it, hoping all the while that it is the right strategy. These are times of distant rewards that test our mettle but found our success. It always amuses me that we as contractors are always so sure that the low bidder has bid below his or her cost or “cheated” and we are convinced that there is no better way to build a project than the way we bid it. It has been proven to me again and again that this kind of thinking is often far from the truth as I have watched my competition build the projects on which I was defeated and occasionally learned that they in fact did have a better way. In fact, our own operations people have sometimes shown that there was a better way on projects on which we were successful as they have soundly beaten the bid margins through their own ingenuity and willingness to try a different way. Claims never prove to be a successful way to augment the bottom line and I do not believe that they are the intended salvation of most bidders.

It is unfortunate that times such as these cause many contractors to become irresponsibly optimistic when bidding a project and/or ignore the risks inherent to the services we provide. However this should not be a reason to condemn the whole public procurement process and shed a good process that admittedly may need some tweaks in order to keep up with the times. It would be a short memory that could discount the corruption and shenanigans that were once commonplace in the public procurement process and make changes that might allow for these practices to resurface.

This is a tough time to start in a tough business, but if it is any consolation to you I have recently faced competition of over 20 contractors, many of them new to the public work and simply trying to keep the doors open. These times force us to find a better way every day, challenging us to decide on a strategy and keep to it, hoping all the while that it is the right strategy. These are times of distant rewards that test our mettle but found our success.

]]> By: Barry LePatner http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-956 Barry LePatner Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:00:40 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-956 John's commentary goes to the heart of why our nation is ill-served by the construction industry. Because public authorities either do not know or do not care to know what the actual cost of a project should be they permit contractors to bid at or below cost. This authorizes extremely low bids that ensure the contractor will run out of money before the project is complete or that the contractor must fabricate claims in an effort to secure a profit or go bust. In no other industry does the marketplace permit bidding that ensures no profit when one signs a contract. John will always face such "non-competitive' bidding schemes and lose out to less qualified contractors who merely hope to get a contract for the right to make claims to stay alive. Sad for the industry and sadder for the public who lives with the fact that such games cost our national economy over $120 billion a year. See "Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets: How to Fix America's Trillion Dollar Construction Industry" (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2007) John’s commentary goes to the heart of why our nation is ill-served by the construction industry. Because public authorities either do not know or do not care to know what the actual cost of a project should be they permit contractors to bid at or below cost. This authorizes extremely low bids that ensure the contractor will run out of money before the project is complete or that the contractor must fabricate claims in an effort to secure a profit or go bust.

In no other industry does the marketplace permit bidding that ensures no profit when one signs a contract. John will always face such “non-competitive’ bidding schemes and lose out to less qualified contractors who merely hope to get a contract for the right to make claims to stay alive. Sad for the industry and sadder for the public who lives with the fact that such games cost our national economy over $120 billion a year. See “Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets: How to Fix America’s Trillion Dollar Construction Industry” (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2007)

]]> By: Ned Pelger http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-903 Ned Pelger Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:39:29 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-903 You are right, John, it is a rough game. You didn't mention the worst part, when a competitor is in such bad shape, they take the job way below costs just to get the cash flow (from early project over-billing) just to stay afloat. I guess they figure that maybe it will get better somehow before the project ends. And if they go into bankruptcy, what's more liabilities matter? I'd challenge you to network as much as you can stomach for new work. There are still private projects being built. Ned Pelger ConstructionKnowledge.net You are right, John, it is a rough game. You didn’t mention the worst part, when a competitor is in such bad shape, they take the job way below costs just to get the cash flow (from early project over-billing) just to stay afloat. I guess they figure that maybe it will get better somehow before the project ends. And if they go into bankruptcy, what’s more liabilities matter?

I’d challenge you to network as much as you can stomach for new work. There are still private projects being built.

Ned Pelger
ConstructionKnowledge.net

]]> By: David Kutcher http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/2010/03/03/the-beauty-of-public-rfps-and-of-course-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-901 David Kutcher Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:31:16 +0000 http://www.constructonomics.com/blog/?p=266#comment-901 Great article and one whose sentiment is being shared by lots of people these days. A little while back I wrote an article entitled "<a href="http://blog.confluentforms.com/2009/10/what-great-recession-means-for.html" rel="nofollow">What the Great Recession means for competitive bidding</a>". Consider yourself lucky: we've heard of projects having over 150 interested parties at the meetings and saw one RFP canceled when 167 letters of intent were submitted! As the owner of the <a href="http://www.rfpdb.com" title="The RFP Database" rel="nofollow">RFP Database</a>, where over 500 RFPs are listed each week for services from accounting and architecture to web design and water reclamation, lots of people ask me for advice for how best to approach RFPs. <a href="http://blog.confluentforms.com/p/all-about-requests-for-proposals-rfps.html" title="Articles about Requests for Proposals" rel="nofollow">Some articles</a> I've written might be useful for you and your readers such as "<a href="http://blog.confluentforms.com/2008/10/not-all-requests-for-proposals-are.html" rel="nofollow">Not all Requests for Proposals are worth a proposal</a>", "<a href="http://blog.confluentforms.com/2009/10/developing-your-gono-go-decision-tree.html" rel="nofollow">Developing your Go/No-Go decision tree</a>", and "<a href="http://blog.confluentforms.com/2009/05/5-quick-tips-to-writing-better.html" rel="nofollow">5 quick tips to writing better proposals (RFP responses)</a>" among others. Good luck! -David Great article and one whose sentiment is being shared by lots of people these days. A little while back I wrote an article entitled “What the Great Recession means for competitive bidding“. Consider yourself lucky: we’ve heard of projects having over 150 interested parties at the meetings and saw one RFP canceled when 167 letters of intent were submitted!

As the owner of the RFP Database, where over 500 RFPs are listed each week for services from accounting and architecture to web design and water reclamation, lots of people ask me for advice for how best to approach RFPs. Some articles I’ve written might be useful for you and your readers such as “Not all Requests for Proposals are worth a proposal“, “Developing your Go/No-Go decision tree“, and “5 quick tips to writing better proposals (RFP responses)” among others.

Good luck!

-David

]]>