| Author |
Message |
John Walters
New member
Username: john_w
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2016
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 03:28 pm: |    |
Owner for private project wants to waive requirement for mandatory pre bid attendance by addendum (after pre bid was held) in order to get additional bidders.Has anyone had this come up before? Any problems? |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 04:15 pm: | |
The purpose of a prebid meeting is typically to walk the site and make bidders aware of special conditions/information. If a bidder does not show up and is allowed to bid the project, his bid may not reflect information that the other bidders know. This means change orders on down the road.
Prebid meetings also allow bidders to ask questions which are typically answered by addenda.
I say either have a mandatory prebid meeting or don't have one at all.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher
www.localproductreps.com |
David J. Wyatt, CDT
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt
Post Number: 130
Registered: 03-2011
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 04:17 pm: | |
On a private project, the owner can make or break his/her own rules, even those involving etiquette. Often there is a clause in procurement instructions that allows the owner to waive any formalities in order to achieve the desired result.
On most public projects in Ohio, mandatory pre-bid meeting attendance is discouraged. |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 04:20 pm: | |
Another purpose the mandatory prebid meeting is to get bidders who are serious about submitting a bid. If they are going to take time out of their day to attend a meeting, they are usually pretty interested in taking on the project.
That said, I have had bidders who, once they saw the difficult site conditions, decided not to bid the project.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher
www.localproductreps.com |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 531
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 05:09 pm: | |
To get more bidders for a recent project after a pre-bid meeting occurred, the client's project manager issued a bid addendum (#1) calling for a second pre-bid meeting, and a bid addendum (#2) to extend the bid period the commensurate amount
The same agenda was followed by the same presenters and minutes of the first pre-bid were distributed. Attendees of the first pre-bid were welcome to come again. The project was a large laboratory remodel and in addition to a site walk, there was a site climb, crawl and squeeze into various utility vaults, tunnels mechanical shafts and interstitial spaces.
I attended both representing the Architect of Record. This involved flying 500 miles and spending the night two times in a nice hotel in La Jolla, California. Tough duty but someone had to do it.
I was concerned that this unusual format would leave the client open to bid dispute, but the project went ahead very smoothly after this first hurdle. |
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 819
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 05:31 pm: | |
David Wyatt is correct about private owners typically reserving the right to waive any and all informalities in the bidding. If this is a public job, a bidder who attended could have grounds for formal bid protest if a non-attending bidder was awarded the contract. Here's why:
"A fundamental principle of the competitive bidding process is that bidders receive fair consideration by bidding on an identical basis." [PDPG 12.7.1] Prior to bidding, the owner obviously felt that information available at the prebid was essential to the bidder's understanding of the project. That's why meeting attendance was made mandatory. Now after the fact, the owner is changing the rules for its own benefit, to the disadvantage of those who followed them in the first place.
For the public project, the owner gets into the realm of illegality, but even in the private project, the owner is engaging in questionable ethics. (Not that ethics ever stood in the way of development, or profit.) |
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 820
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 15, 2016 - 05:35 pm: | |
My previous was posted prior to reading Steven Bruneel's example. In that case, the owner was treating the bidders fairly, as all original bidders were aware of the addendum and had the opportunity to attend the second meeting, and in concept, everyone got the same info at each meeting. |
Jeff Williams RA
Senior Member
Username: architectjw
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2013
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 03:29 pm: | |
George, I know this is a week old but we had this happen recently and it didn't turn out to be in our favor. We had a small turnout at the pre bid meeting. We would have let the other contractors provide a bid but the contractors that had attended were adamant that we follow our own rules. So we followed our own rules. We no longer require mandatory pre bid meetings. |
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid
Post Number: 112
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 03:33 pm: | |
Jeff,
I assume then, that the contractors will also insist upon enforcement of the rules regarding submittals, testing, substitutions, notifications, and the rest. Won't they?
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 03:49 pm: | |
Michael,
That assumes the contractors were born with a shame gene. In my experience, most aren't. |
|
4specs.com Home Page