3rd August 2009, 01:52 PM
Posted by Plautus:
I am not saying that is necessarily the case - just that it is too simplistic to say that the more expensive bid would necessarily result in better quality work, or that a cheaper bid is necessarily poor quality.
An approach that we have sometimes applied to substantial projects is to invite tenders only from units that have shown they can do the work to the standard required, and then to assess the quality elements of the bid before opening the prices only for those bids that passed the quality test. Nevertheless, at that stage one of the surviving bids will win on price - and the losing bidders can complain about being 'undercut'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I know of a couple of units that look likely to go under. It is a worry and a shame, as their demise seems to have little to do with quality of work but rather other units undercutting them for jobsThat's a bit of a simplistic outlook. The units at risk of closure may be at risk because they are poorly managed (despite producing good work in archaeological terms), while those 'undercutting' them may be cheaper not because they cut archaeological corners but because they are better managed.
I am not saying that is necessarily the case - just that it is too simplistic to say that the more expensive bid would necessarily result in better quality work, or that a cheaper bid is necessarily poor quality.
An approach that we have sometimes applied to substantial projects is to invite tenders only from units that have shown they can do the work to the standard required, and then to assess the quality elements of the bid before opening the prices only for those bids that passed the quality test. Nevertheless, at that stage one of the surviving bids will win on price - and the losing bidders can complain about being 'undercut'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished