Quote:
Originally Posted by William Van Alen
Curious to hear more about the differences between Best Qualified vs Lowest Bid methods. I think I get the general gist, but is there any history as to why things are done like that here? Do you have some good examples of when lowest bid worked out poorly? Why has it not been changed?
I work in real estate development now for a smaller company that typically goes with the lowest bidder. However, we recently signed some large tenants who run their own fit out projects who don't go with the lowest bidder. Seeing the difference in quality, organization, and responsiveness is really pretty eye opening.
Maybe this discussion belongs in the transportation thread?
|
I think it still is appropriate to talk about here because it doesn't just apply to SEPTA, or any transit agency alone. It applies to government agencies, private companies, and
certainly land development.
Going with the lowest bidder no matter what leads to some pretty crappy products. The SEPTA Key, MBTA CRRC Subway Cars, etc. all came about as a result of going with the lowest bidder, even if they weren't well qualified. I'm sure that the City bids on some projects that get a horrible low-ball bid that ends up completely backfiring.
Best Qualified Bidding
can still mean the lowest bidder, but it essentially requires companies putting out for bids to give a list of qualifications and how important each qualification is. For instance, if I solicit bids on a construction project and get two bids, one from a well-respected company known for quality work and another from a little-known company that is about 2/3 the price of the other, I may choose to go with the former, depending on how little faith I have in the latter.