More tough times for Constructonomics

After attending a pre-bid meeting for a door replacement job for the City of Philadalphia, I was all set to deliver a bid for the project after ironing out some minor details with the minority requirements and union politics. However, last week I received a call from someone in the City of Philadelphia procurement office. The woman asked for my fax number so she could send me a letter. Well, I don't have a fax machine, so this was a little difficult.

I should probably get a fax machine even though they are rather pointless these days. It's just as easy to scan a document in and send it over email. Plus you have an instant electronic copy of the correspondence.

So I told her that I didn't have a fax and I asked if she could scan the letter and send it over email. I was kind of surprised that she was actually willing to do this because the City of Philadelphia isn't typically the most accommodating to contractors who are trying to bid on their work. Anyway, I received the email and attached was a letter stating that I was disqualified from the bid on Stenton Manor Door Replacement. The reasons for the disqualification were as follows:

1. Late submission of the Supplemental Prequalification Questionnaire

2. The questionnaire does not reflect that the bidder has successfully completed contracts of equivalent scope and comparative magnitude

3. The bidder did not demonstrate sufficient financial resources to complete the project.

Just for the record, I had my pre-qual questionnaire in on time, and I didn't get the supplement until the day it was supposedly due. They were never clear about whether the supplement was due on the same day or not. So if this was the reason for my disqualification, why did they go into further explanation about experience and financial resources, both of which could be substantially argued?

I decided to give the Philadelphia procurement commissioner, Hugh Ortman, a call to discuss this bit further.

Surprisingly, I actually got Mr. Ortman on the phone on my first try and he was very polite in listening to my side of the story and giving some further explanation. I explained that while my company is new, I have eight years of construction industry experience and this would serve as more than enough to do a small door replacement job. Mr. Ortman explained that my personal experience is all well and good, but it's the experience of the company that is looked at in determining qualified bidders.

I suppose this makes sense from a management standpoint, but in my case the City lost an opportunity to get some very cheap labor on a job that was far less complicated than other's I have worked on. I was advised to come back in a year or two when I get some jobs under my belt. It feels like a chicken and egg scenario.

At first I was curious if I just didn't slip the right person a twenty or something, but I guess I'll try again down the road, but that time any "financial resources" I have may be a thing of the past.

More tough times for Constructonomics