4 ms·
Please distinguish between federal-level procurement and state and local procurement. "Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder .. " In many states, i
by Frondo 9y ago
Please distinguish between federal-level procurement and state and local procurement.
"Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder .. " In many states, it's law that they must go with the lowest bidder. This often causes problems because that lowest bidder delivers shoddy work that leads to eventual cost overruns--going with the "best value" instead of "lowest price" would reward companies that could meet both cost AND quality expectations. It'd also more closely reflect private sector considerations if those laws were changed; a private company can spend more for higher quality and get the long-term benefit of that quality deliverable, and that's a trade-off and decision that's simply taken away from state/local procurement professionals.
State and local procurement tends to run pretty lean, and tends to be pretty accountable. All this stuff is public record, and local papers will often cull through that stuff looking for juicy nuggets. The relative rarity of public purchasing scandals, at least for state and local folks, tells you that they're probably doing a pretty good job (even with the goofy restrictions like "you must buy from the lowest bidder even if their work is shit").
- Consultant32452 9y agoYou just stated that state and local government, by law, must go to the lowest bidder and that shoots them in the foot because there's cost over-runs, etc. That doesn't sound "pretty lean" or "accountable" to me.
- bragh 9y agoIs it actually the law though, not just lazy officials? We had that problem in Estonia too, but some procurement officials have actually begun to write scoring systems for proposals and so being the lowest bidder is sometimes actually negatively scored.