Competitive Bidding Is Not the Same as Lowest Bidder
A friend with 14 years in defect repair recently posted a different view from mine on how HOAs should procure construction defect projects. Her post makes several points I agree with, so I want to answer it carefully.
She is right that the lowest bid doesn't always mean the best value. She is right that a process fixated on the lowest number can produce scope gaps and unnecessary change orders. She is right that collaboration among the contractor, the engineer and the HOA's Owner's Representative makes settlement dollars go further. The Owner's Representative is the piece I'd underline. The HOA hires an independent professional whose only job is to represent the community, and who can guide and direct the contractor and the engineer day to day, something a volunteer board and a busy community manager cannot do on their own. That person keeps the scope complete, challenges assumptions on the owner's behalf, and holds everyone to the plan. And leaving a community with money to add to reserves after the repair is a great outcome. I want that for every client.
I also tell boards not to hire the lowest bidder, often. My recommendation to a board is frequently someone other than the low number. So where do we actually differ?
Nobody is arguing for the lowest number
My position is that a defect repair should be competitively bid. It is not that the lowest bidder should win. Those are different statements, and the post blends them.
Competition answers one question: what does this scope cost in the market? Selection answers another: who should do it? A board can bid the work and still award it to the second or third price because the proposal is more complete, the superintendent is stronger, or the approach is better. Scoring, leveling and interviews exist for exactly that reason.
The problems she describes are scope problems
Scope gaps, unnecessary change orders and outcomes that fall short of what the community intended are real. They are also what happens when bidders price different jobs. A defined scope prevents them: repair details, quantities, unit prices for hidden conditions, sequencing, acceptance criteria and closeout documents, written by an independent professional before anyone prices anything.
Without that, a negotiated contract inherits the same gaps. The scope is whatever the contractor's investigation says it is, and the owner has no independent measure of whether it is complete.
Value is scored, not assumed
When we recommend against the low bidder, the reason shows up in the leveling or the interview: missing scope, unbalanced pricing, thin staffing, a superintendent nobody has met, a warranty that reads well and covers little. We score experience on this repair type, references, key personnel, completeness and how the contractor handles hard questions. The low bid can lose. It often does.
Alternative repair methods, priced against a baseline
A near-$1M saving from an alternative repair approach is a significant result, and I would want that idea in front of any board. I would just ask the question every board should: saved against what?
When the alternative comes from the one contractor who will also perform it, the baseline is that contractor's own first price for the original method. The saving is real only if that first price was fair. A competitive process answers that. Invite bidders to propose alternates as priced alternatives against the base scope, have the engineer confirm the alternate performs and is warrantable, and put the base and the alternate side by side. The board gets the creativity and a measured number.
Preconstruction input has real value. I want it. I just want it after the scope is defined and the market has priced it, not in place of those steps.
"Accomplish more" needs a definition
Her closing line is the right goal: not just to spend less, but to accomplish more. More has to be written down to be delivered. That means acceptance criteria, the quality of the repair defined in measurable terms, and a closeout file proving the work was done. Competition keeps the price honest. Scope defines the outcome. Collaboration, after award, delivers it.
It isn't either/or
A board that defines the scope with an independent professional, bids it to qualified contractors, levels the proposals, interviews every bidder and scores for value gets the contractor's expertise and the market's discipline together. I am glad there are strong contractors doing this work, and I'd like to see more of them in the room, bidding.
If you take one thing from this: the lowest bidder is a selection mistake. Competitive bidding is not. Define the scope first, and the rest works.
Next time: if the city isn't checking the quality of the repair, who is?
Sean Davis, Project Management Professional | Civil Engineer | Current HOA Board Member (12 years) | DHA Construction Management | Broomfield, CO
Comments