To the Editor:
Brian Dijkema is correct in his letter to the editor that was featured in the Jan. 21 edition of the Daily Commercial News (DCN) stating that I was one of the three authors of his paper, six years ago.
My main issue with restrictive bidding is related to a previous paper written with construction lawyer Glenn Ackerley, which can be found online and is entitled, Facts or Fiction? Dispelling the Myths about the Bundling of Construction Projects.
By restricting bids to one or two bidders, the price goes up.
In Dijkema’s report, I also stated the following: “The debate on closed tendering versus open tendering should not be mischaracterized as a tussle between unionized and non-unionized industry members; the real issue is how bodies can ensure fair and transparent benchmarking so as to get the best value possible for public dollars.”
My continued concerns as written in three recent DCN columns still stand.
In my Jan. 22 column, I write “through the development of concise policies and procedures without sacrificing any positive aspects of the present system,” will create the solution to this long-standing problem related to the procurement process.
My philosophy in every column I write has always been to promote qualified contractors and value for money.
When I say that “this cannot be accomplished without a wide range of consultation with union, and non-union contractors,” I mean it.
I believe this is the only way to fix municipal procurement and create the fair, open and transparent procurement process we can all benefit from.
Sincerely,
Stephen Bauld
Government procurement expert
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed