Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuperTeamRyan t1_j7khnfk wrote

Reply to comment by PsuedoSkillGeologist in MTA spent twice as much on Second Ave subway consultants as it did on its construction by NYY657545

I was under the impression the consultant should be the one providing the information to the contractor and the state(owner) pretty much just says we want X done. At this point in my understanding all the contractors make impossibly low bids to get the job and then once the have the job delay slow and stall work to milk the project because the state compared to them generally have unlimited funds and they know the state will not allow a public works project to just stall out once ground has been broken.

15

Jeff3412 t1_j7kzrw7 wrote

>I was under the impression the consultant should be the one providing the information to the contractor and the state(owner) pretty much just says we want X done.

Correct. I am a design consultant.

We meet with clients, architects, or owner reps and ask them what their needs are with regards to our trade and then we make specs and drawings that go out to bid to contractors. Depending on the job and contract we may help review the bids and point out which bids are missing scope where.

>At this point in my understanding all the contractors make impossibly low bids to get the job and then once the have the job delay slow and stall work to milk the project because the state compared to them generally have unlimited funds

A contractor winning a job with too low of a bid (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then trying to create as many change orders as possible even in places that the documents are clear is always a concern, but public sector jobs are usually worse because often legally they have to go with the low bid.

In the private sector you can say to the end client, the architect, or owner's rep that contractor X has a slightly lower bid than contractor Y but based on past jobs contractor Y is more reliable (and their bid is actually capturing all their needed scope). Then the client can choose to spend slightly more upfront to pick the contractor that their consultant advised them too.

But on a public job letting agency officials pick a higher bid could also end up being a recipe for enabling corruption.

6

mrpeeng t1_j7l5gqg wrote

My old company did this for various gov. inspection jobs. They'd undercut the bids just to win them for the cash flow to pay for other higher paying jobs. Gov. payment was always reliable so that kept the business running when it was slow. When they lost a job to some one else due to a lower bid, they'd have them audited to see how it was possible and fight it. There are a bunch of stupid rules that inflate the bids though like some jobs had requirement where you HAVE to use a company that is women owned for 20% of your supplies. You find them and they ALL charge 200% the normal rate of something like a ream of paper.

5

atyppo t1_j7lc1fd wrote

Yep. It's insane. If the government is literally required to discriminate 30% of the time (NYS standard) for MWBE owned businesses, then I have no hope for our legislators, since they clearly lack any sort of self-awareness. Shocking news: women aren't typically particularly interested in running tunneling companies, for example (yes, I'm aware this is a very simplified example). The ones that are can now charge whatever they want since they have little to no competition, yet the state is obliged to contract them.

7

vidro3 t1_j7lcixd wrote

> In the private sector you can say to the end client, the architect, or owner's rep that contractor X has a slightly lower bid than contractor Y but based on past jobs contractor Y is more reliable (and their bid is actually capturing all their needed scope). Then the client can choose to spend slightly more upfront to pick the contractor that their consultant advised them too.

Isn't the standard something like lowest qualified bid or lowest responsible bid? I forget the exact wording. I've definitely seen bids for city projects that all came in a pretty tight range and the absolute lowest was not selected. Sometimes it's some reasoning like well Skanska already built these 7 bridges so they can more easily build the next 5 even though their bid is 4% higher.

3

PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7km2ih wrote

This is logical to you?

For a general contractor to win a $3B job and from the get-go. Drag their feet. Hoping it’ll lose money, so they can sue the owner and get MAYBE 20 cents on the dollar?

4

SuperTeamRyan t1_j7koc2z wrote

Yes.

Underbid > get contract > start work > make slow progress > go over budget > still get paid as essential infrastructure is essential.

11

PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7kwflz wrote

Ok. I think I see your confusion now. As a general rule of thumb most companies, in every industry, across the entire globe don’t try to lose money on their work.

−6