Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: California State Employees' Initiative

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

MJSLAYSMAN wrote:

> Nigel:
>
> That is what I wanted to see.  You may get flamed but not by me.  I still
> think this proposal is a bad idea but I got what I wanted in a way of
> explanation without "cute" comments, it just happens to differ with my point
> of view, such is life I live with it.  The consultant that spoke of "country
> club memberships" must have been some kind of -- give me a word -- even if it

I can think of several that would do, either alone or together. :-)[...]

> QBS is another subject.  I also feel that if this law is adopted (from what I
> know or think I know) would result in selection based soley on fee.  I have
> seen this in action by some public departments here in Az and can tell you
> from experience that it is false ecconomy.  One of the best ways, in my
> opinion, if fees are to be submitted with the propsal is a way in which I
> proposed on a bridge project on the Navajo Nation several years ago.  The
> consultant submitted two envelopes, one with his qualification and one with
> his price.  The selection committee ranked the proposers 1,2,3 etc. and opened
> the "bid" of the highest ranked firm and opened negotiations based upon their
> proposal.  If negotiations were acceptable he got the project, if they could
> not reach agreement they went to #2 etc.  The envelopes of the other

This is the method we use now, ever since an Attorney General's Opinion allowed us
to implement QBS.  We used to hire on price only, as the law left us no choice to
do otherwise.  While I'm still not happy with the quality we get overall, there's
a definite improvement with QBS.  What's more, there's incentive for improvement
in quality this way, while hiring on price punished the firms that put more effort
into their work.

Nigel