17th March 2009, 01:24 PM
Posted by Gagumph:
Point b) - there are quite a lot of other valid quality criteria. For instance, Unit A (the cheapest) may not be able to provide satisfactory evidence that they are in a position to complete the work to the standard required within the time specified, whereas Unit B (more costly) may be able to provide that evidence.
However, my initial comment relates to an initial appointment to carry out watching briefs, not to the main works. Having said that, I believe the contractor appointed for the WB forms part of the consortium appointed to do the main works.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:1 man 1 desk saidPoint a) - maybe so, but I have reason to believe it is true.
"It might be worth mentioning in this context that I believe that the contract was not won by the cheapest tenderer, and that quality issues were the factor leading to the acceptance of a more expensive bid."
a) I have heard otherwise
b) Bearing in mind that the adverts put out by company B are for also for PO'S and Supervisors (people intended to run the sites) how can the job have been awarded on quality when they dont know who they are going to get to do it?
Point b) - there are quite a lot of other valid quality criteria. For instance, Unit A (the cheapest) may not be able to provide satisfactory evidence that they are in a position to complete the work to the standard required within the time specified, whereas Unit B (more costly) may be able to provide that evidence.
However, my initial comment relates to an initial appointment to carry out watching briefs, not to the main works. Having said that, I believe the contractor appointed for the WB forms part of the consortium appointed to do the main works.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished