LATEST NEWS Professional Services
February 20, 2013
Terms governing tenders need to be more consistent
I recently was in New York visiting several private and public sector clients and my meetings involved reviewing large public sector tenders. I noticed the rules are very different, from country to state to municipality, when it comes to how tenders are written.
What jumped out at me, as the biggest contrast, was that the documents are more to the point and less about trying to stuff every piece of risk protection into the tender form for construction, to goods and services. Maybe it was just the ones I was reviewing but I don’t think so. The client told me “they are very standard when it comes to asking for what they want and less formal when it comes to the rules that would apply in Canada”. I guess you could view that statement in several different ways that would be both good, and bad for the person bidding the tender.
I don’t know why I would be surprised, but I was because as I reviewed the document it was clear that the state was going to end up with exactly what they wanted. It sure looked to me like any rules were not going to get in the way of the end result.
As a contrast to how we do things in Canada some, but by no means all, municipal purchasing bylaws contain extensive set of rules governing the manner in which the municipality is to conduct its tenders (and similar contract competitions). There are inherent risks in the incorporations of provisions of this nature into any purchasing bylaw. If any instructions of this kind are included, it is best that the bylaw make it very clear that they are intended as being directive or indicative only, rather than prescriptive. Unfortunately, a light-handed approach is not often encountered.
Instead, bylaw provisions of this nature have a tendency to sink to the level of detail that is not desirable in any law business and legal reasons. On a business level, giving minute directions constitute micro-management. Almost invariably, they impose an unduly cumbersome process on the conduct on a tender. They prevent or at least deter the municipal staff from responding effectively to the dynamics of market conditions.
These problems pale, however, in comparison to the legal problems to which such an approach to drafting gives rise. There is an inherent tendency, when drafting up instruction to bidders, as to how something is to be done to specify what is perceived in the abstract to be the optimal manner of conducting the activity in question. Even when there is something to be said for the description that is provided, no law should prescribe the ideal as the minimum standard that must be attained.
Where such an approach is taken, then every deviation from the ideal constitutes a breach of law. Any such breach raises questions about the authority of municipal staff to act, unless they have adhered perfectly to the instructions that have been given. Perfection would not be a realistic expectation even if every tender were conducted under ideal conditions.
In reality, ideal conditions are rarely encountered, as is perfect performance. Indeed, deviations from perfection are very often the inevitable result of the fact that real world tenders are not conducted under ideal conditions. For this reason, laws should not set down a code of perfection. Rather, they should prescribe the minimum standard of acceptability: the point at which even by the rough and tumble standards of free market capitalism, what is going on is just plain unfair or otherwise improper.
The end result sits someplace between one country going with the “get it done” philosophy, and another country following the letter of the law.
Stephen Bauld, Canada’s leading expert on government procurement, is a member of the Daily Commercial News editorial advisory board. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
|MOST POPULAR STORIES|
|TODAY’S TOP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS|
These projects have been selected from 433 projects with a total value of $3,210,413,882 that Reed Construction Data Building Reports reported on Thursday.
$210,000,000 Toronto ON Prebid
$110,000,000 Toronto ON Tenders
$51,500,000 Milton ON Negotiated
- VIDEO: LiUNA Local 183 Training Centre introduces new programs
- VIDEO: RCCAO Pre-Budget Roundtable on infrastructure
- Storied Burka Architects downsizes and transitions
- Learning Centre Construction
- Collaboration with industry important to workplace safety improvement: Witmer
- Robot-powered construction revolution
- Engineers design permanent flood protection for Calgary
- Inquest called into fatal Vecchio incident
- Infrastructure Ontario issues RFQ for Ontario Place construction
- Cisco picks Toronto for location of new innovation hub
- Concerns raised about P3 approach for Saskatchewan schools
- Journal of Commerce Preview for the week of March 10th, 2014
- PHOTO GALLERY: 2014 Wood Design Awards
- Wastewater treatment plant tops priority list
- Lone bidder prepares P3 proposal for Alberta schools
- Industry reacts as details emerge about job grant agreement
- Demand rising for Kitimat camps
- Open textbooks are key to skills training
- InPower BC awarded John Hart project contract
- Skills training investment in Manitoba
- Premier claims pact justifies need for $10 billion dam