Too little - Letters: keep those cards, letters, and e-mails coming, folks - Letter to the Editor

Residential Architect, April, 2003 by Thomas Johnson

I've been an architect in private practice for over 30 years, and am firmly ensconced in the belief that the competitive bid process is the fairest way to build almost any project. Saying this doesn't mean that I always take the "low bid." A well-documented project allows contractors an "even playing field," and carefully selecting prequalifled bidders allows "equal representation" in the bidding process. Too few bidders is not representative; too many just isn't necessary or fair to the construction community.

Having bids--from a group of carefully selected contractors--allows you to present to the clients a fair price in the competitive marketplace. Somebody will be high, somebody will be low, and, if you have done your job in the preparation of the drawings and the specifications, there will be a group of very close bidders in the "middle." This will be the true value of the work, and the selection of the successful bidder can then be made with assurance to the clients that the price is a fair value for both them and the contractor.

I always reflect on the words of John Ruskin, written sometime in the late 1800s: "It's unwise to pay too much but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money--that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot--it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better."

Thomas Johnson

Thomas Johnson/Architect

Morton, Pa.