3 ms·

Why wouldn't corrupt people just bid low and give the public manager a bigger kickback? And if the contractor & public manager are both corrupt, wouldn't the jo

Why wouldn't corrupt people just bid low and give the public manager a bigger kickback? And if the contractor & public manager are both corrupt, wouldn't the job likely be shoddy anyway? I spoke with a family member at a wedding recently who manages civil engineering projects in his city (he himself is a civil engineer), a regional transportation hub. He said it's all lowest bidder with one exception: a contractor with a history of shoddy work. His reasoning was that he'd really have to justify going with anyone but the lowest bidder. In other words, he'd be responsible for the outcome. Keep in mind, most of his job is ensuring that the city's spec is followed and if not that contractors fix shoddy work. It's non-trivial, certainly couldn't be replaced by an algorithm and gives him pretty significant skin in the game (if he did his job poorly and let shoddy construction make it through, he'd be out of a job).

jaclaz 4y ago
>Why wouldn't corrupt people just bid low and give the public manager a bigger kickback? Well, if the public manager has no powers in the assignment, there is no reason why the builder should "pay" him/her, from this point of view lowest bid is effective as an anti-corruption method. And by bidding low the builder will have less available money to possibly attempt to bribe anyone. But then (maybe - just hypothetical) once the lowest bidder is awarded the contract they will find each and every possible way (including bribing) to get more money for the contract, changes, improvements, extensions, etc.. The usual counter-argument is that all builders are the same, so if you award the contract to (say) the 2nd lower bidder, they will make exactly the same, only starting from a higher "base", There are often very fine lines between "contributing to bankrupcy of builder", "paying a fair price" and "spend too much public money".

jaclaz 4y ago

>Why wouldn't corrupt people just bid low and give the public manager a bigger kickback? Well, if the public manager has no powers in the assignment, there is no reason why the builder should "pay" him/her, from this point of view lowest bid is effective as an anti-corruption method. And by bidding low the builder will have less available money to possibly attempt to bribe anyone. But then (maybe - just hypothetical) once the lowest bidder is awarded the contract they will find each and every possible way (including bribing) to get more money for the contract, changes, improvements, extensions, etc.. The usual counter-argument is that all builders are the same, so if you award the contract to (say) the 2nd lower bidder, they will make exactly the same, only starting from a higher "base", There are often very fine lines between "contributing to bankrupcy of builder", "paying a fair price" and "spend too much public money".