Alabama QBS

Alabama QBS

1. Namath
2. Starr
3. Stabler

Tommy Young, post: 337574, member: 703 wrote: I was just wondering what everyone thought about QBS for private contracts. I don't think enforcement of such a rule is constitutional. It's restraint of trade.

The contract clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) has been interpreted that a state my not impose regulation that impairs the ability of private individuals to enter into contracts (say, for example, hiring a surveyor) unless the State can prove that it is remedying a "broad, general, societal or economic problem".

Requiring a surveyor to tell Harry Homeowner that state regulations forbid him from submitting a fee proposal unless said Harry Homeowners makes a request for qualifications from multiple firms, evaluates and selects the most qualified firm, then enter into negotiations for the service's fee is, I believe, the legal definition of asinine.

James Fleming, post: 337583, member: 136 wrote: Alabama QBS

1. Namath
2. Starr
3. Stabler

The contract clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) has been interpreted that a state my not impose regulation that impairs the ability of private individuals to enter into contracts (say, for example, hiring a surveyor) unless the State can prove that it is remedying a "broad, general, societal or economic problem".

Requiring a surveyor to tell Harry Homeowner that state regulations forbid him from submitting a fee proposal unless said Harry Homeowners makes a request for qualifications from multiple firms, evaluates and selects the most qualified firm, then enter into negotiations for the service's fee is, I believe, the legal definition of asinine.

Well played on the QBs. Well played.

On the other, Lucas laid out an excellent argument against it. I have it in print and am not going to retype it. One of his points was Joe Homeowner is going to call a surveyor until he finds one that will give him what he wants, a price. The ethical and moral surveyors are going to follow the law and want to submit qualifications. When they mention that, the phone call will end. Eventually some jackleg will quote a price. This process will ensure that jacklegs get more work.

Another point he made was how is a young surveyor supposed to ever get any work? One that has just hung out his shingle will never be the most qualified in a particular market.

QBS for government contracts is a good thing. For lot surveys it's ridiculous.

QBS for governmental agencies is very common and I prefer it to low bid. For a State Board to discipline someone for being the low bid seems problematic.
First off, how would this not violate existing Anti-Trust laws?
Secondly, the Client making a selection based on price may be out of the Surveyor's control and knowledge.

I assume the intent is to regulate the cut rate slob surveyor. Why can't the Board do this now by simply reviewing Cheapo's work? Cheapo will either produce substandard work or be out of business very shortly. I would be happy for the Board to actually enforce technical standards and leave the business of running a survey practice to the surveyor.

Interesting concept. Here in New York, an un-named State Agency decided all surveyors were equally qualified and that the price is the deciding factor. So much for most qualified. We have surveying firms bidding on projects that include photogrammetric mapping when they do not have it in house, how can they be the most qualified?

NYLS, post: 337622, member: 1722 wrote: Interesting concept. Here in New York, an un-named State Agency decided all surveyors were equally qualified and that the price is the deciding factor. So much for most qualified. We have surveying firms bidding on projects that include photogrammetric mapping when they do not have it in house, how can they be the most qualified?

Since many large civil works projects have at least some flavor of federal funding, doesn't this violate the Brooks Act? Or is price the deciding factor only on projects where the Feds are not participating? Professional work let on most DOT projects has to be QBS to satisfy the Brooks Act.

My experience of government work is that they want it fast and cheap.
It is always good no matter if someone finds the mistake or not.
That mistake never surfaces unless it conflicts with something that costs more or belongs to someone higher on the ladder.
When it comes to dirt and drainage, it can be fixed unless everything is flat.
You do what you are told to do, period, even if you have to do it over and over and over.

To compete with contracts, a company has to model itself with people that have certain skills and fall under wage guidelines that fit the mold and are diversified and can adapt from project to project with the right personnel expected that show up and keep with schedule.

QBS is one vetting solution and is much better than lowest bidder. There has to be a discipline to follow in granting contracts apart from lowest cost. Lowest costs brings in too many factors that ignore quality workmanship and allow a coat of fluff to cover the flaws and replace what is needed and/or required.

Hurry, hurry and low wages does not bring out the best or even a good product. They tend to pay the bills, wear out the equipment, get the job in on schedule and leave nothing on top to retool and prepare for the future.

0.02

On Federal projects their are very strict guidlines for QBS that you must at least document that you followed. There is also a requirement that the Prime Contractor do 51% of the work. If the contract is for surveying services, a majority of the selection board must be Land Surveyros. If the project is an Engineering project, the majority of the selection board must be PE. I know of situations where Land Surveyors that Work for the government have traveled to another state to serve on a selection board so a majority of the board would be Land Surveyors. It costs a lot of money for the government to put a contract in place so they try not to do $20,000 contracts. It costs the same to put a $10,000,000 in place as a $100,000 contract.

Tommy Young, post: 337574, member: 703 wrote: There is a rule in Alabama that surveyors must be contracted by QBS and not selected by the lowest bidder.

Recently the Alabama board has announced that they are going to start enforcing this rule.

ASLS, and its president, Jeff Lucas, have come out against this rule.

I was just wondering what everyone thought about QBS for private contracts. I don't think enforcement of such a rule is constitutional. It's restraint of trade.

It sounds insane to me, how in the world could you enforce such a thing.

So the board of surveyors would go to the landowner and do exactly what?
After all, this is a rule against hiring, not being hired.

I'm just thinking about some of the people I do work for, I can just see them going to one of the attorneys or companies I work with,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,good luck with thatB-)

QBS makes perfect sense for government work, but is impractical and unenforceable for private work.

Lee D, post: 337713, member: 7971 wrote: QBS makes perfect sense for government work, but is impractical and unenforceable for private work.

Actually, I believe its kinda the other way round, QBS is done all the time for private work.

When government types apply it, it often goes off the rails.

To have them force it down the private sector's throat would quickly cause the opposite of QBS to happen.

I just hired a contractor, I didn't bid out the job, crazy me I went with the best guy. B-)

Yes but that's your individual choice... you can't force something like QBS down the private sector's throats. Some people shop purely on price, some purely on quality, and most somewhere in between. There are a thousand good reasons why bidding out government work on a strictly low bid basis is a bad idea.

Lee D, post: 337718, member: 7971 wrote: Yes but that's your individual choice... you can't force something like QBS down the private sector's throats. Some people shop purely on price, some purely on quality, and most somewhere in between. There are a thousand good reasons why bidding out government work on a strictly low bid basis is a bad idea.

Exactly, I just don't want anyone to get the impression that QBS is some great government idea, like so many things they are pitiful examples of administrating a program like it when compared to the private sector.

The idea that some board would go out into the private world and start telling people who to hire................

You have to be kidding me, not to mention it has to be illegal.:-(

If the board gives out a license, then that person is qualified,,,,,,,,, if they aren't then the board has to look at itself.