4 ms·

The sad thing is I don't see the public sector getting any better at this anytime soon.

by luplex 3y ago

throwaway049 3y ago
Don't see the private sector doing so either. It's a scramble every year for Glastonbury festival tickets.
skeeter2020 3y ago
Also sad: the (terrible) response times and efforts detailed here exceed what many organizations, private and public, have shown in their situations.
mysterydip 3y ago
Worse, there's laws in place (in the name of "cost savings") that need changed before any policy improvement could be made. A group can't just decide "it would be better if we didn't use the lowest bidder." There's legal repercussions and losers can sue (leading to more expense than if they just went with them in the first place). It's truly terrible.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  They don't just accept the lowest bid. It's the lowest bid that complies with the requirements. You can tighten up the requirements and conditions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    You can also consider the demonstrated qualifications/competency of the bidder. I could submit a low bid for a project and if I have no history of ever completing similar projects my bid can be rejected on that basis. However (at least in the few governemnt bids I've been involved in) if the low bidder does not get the award, they can challenge the award and often do. Then the government has to defend their decision and give the reasons the low bid was disqualified.
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      > I could submit a low bid for a project and if I have no history of ever completing similar projects my bid can be rejected on that basis. Good luck with that. It is prejudiced discrimination because you assume that if the bidder never did a contract like what you're looking for, they will not be able to do it. It would be just like you don't want to hire a junior because they never worked before :)
- DamonHD 3y ago
  I can tell you for the procurement that I had anything to do with at a UK school, though for projects above a certain cost floor three or more quotes were required, I advised NOT taking the cheapest nor most expensive bids unless there was a specific good reason...
- overboard2 3y ago
  It's supposed to limit corruption by making it harder to give contracts as political favors
  - mysterydip 3y ago
    I know there's good intentions, but the system has been gamed/exploited for a long time with no real way to defend thanks to the legal implications.

The sad thing is I don't see the public sector getting any better at this anytime soon.

by luplex 3y ago

The sad thing is I don't see the public sector getting any better at this anytime soon.

throwaway049 3y ago

Don't see the private sector doing so either. It's a scramble every year for Glastonbury festival tickets.

skeeter2020 3y ago

Also sad: the (terrible) response times and efforts detailed here exceed what many organizations, private and public, have shown in their situations.

mysterydip 3y ago

Worse, there's laws in place (in the name of "cost savings") that need changed before any policy improvement could be made. A group can't just decide "it would be better if we didn't use the lowest bidder." There's legal repercussions and losers can sue (leading to more expense than if they just went with them in the first place). It's truly terrible.

HPsquared 3y ago
They don't just accept the lowest bid. It's the lowest bid that complies with the requirements. You can tighten up the requirements and conditions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  You can also consider the demonstrated qualifications/competency of the bidder. I could submit a low bid for a project and if I have no history of ever completing similar projects my bid can be rejected on that basis. However (at least in the few governemnt bids I've been involved in) if the low bidder does not get the award, they can challenge the award and often do. Then the government has to defend their decision and give the reasons the low bid was disqualified.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    > I could submit a low bid for a project and if I have no history of ever completing similar projects my bid can be rejected on that basis. Good luck with that. It is prejudiced discrimination because you assume that if the bidder never did a contract like what you're looking for, they will not be able to do it. It would be just like you don't want to hire a junior because they never worked before :)
DamonHD 3y ago
I can tell you for the procurement that I had anything to do with at a UK school, though for projects above a certain cost floor three or more quotes were required, I advised NOT taking the cheapest nor most expensive bids unless there was a specific good reason...
overboard2 3y ago
It's supposed to limit corruption by making it harder to give contracts as political favors
- mysterydip 3y ago
  I know there's good intentions, but the system has been gamed/exploited for a long time with no real way to defend thanks to the legal implications.