RESOLUTION NO. RS2011-1705

Well, it’s been a while.  A LONG while.  I thought if I stopped posting Nashville_Fad or Nashville_fAd would get off their butts and take charge of a really cool topic going on around town.  They called my bluff.  So, I write today about a resolution by the Davidson County Delegation to the TN General Assembly that local architecture and engineering firms be able to match the low bids of all projects in order to procure a contract.  Resolution No. RS2011-1705 tries to mask a garbage proposal as a heroic act to save local architecture firms and engineers.  I have a hard time believing anyone is buying it.  What this proposal REALLY is about is lowering fees paid for quality work.  This bill is sponsored by Eric Crafton, Jim Gotto, and Michael Craddock.  If any of those names sound infamous it would probably be Eric Crafton.  He led the “English Only” charge back in 2008 which received a lot of nation wide interest.  Here is the resolution in its entirety.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2011-1705

A resolution requesting the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to allow the Metropolitan Government to provide an opportunity for local bidders to match the lowest bid in the award of procurement contracts, as well as to include price as a factor in awarding professional services contracts.

WHEREAS, Section 8.111 of the Metropolitan Charter requires the purchasing agent to use competitive bidding in the procurement of certain goods and services; and

WHEREAS, Tennessee Code Annotated §12-4-111 prohibits local governments from including a provision in a competitively bid contract or invitation to bid allowing a bidder that is not the lowest bidder to meet the low price; and

WHEREAS, Tennessee Code Annotated §12-4-106(a)(2)(A) prohibits the Metropolitan Government from using a competitive bid process to award professional service contracts; and

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Government has a legitimate governmental interest in promoting and increasing local industry, reducing local unemployment, and increasing the local tax base; and

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has determined that providing local businesses the opportunity to match the lowest responsible and responsive bid for the procurement of goods and services will further this legitimate governmental interest; and

WHEREAS, qualified architect and engineering firms are often not given the opportunity to be considered for Metropolitan Government projects even though they could provide quality services at a lower fee; and

WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper that the Metropolitan Government have the authority to provide some form of a preference for local companies bidding on government contracts, as well as to consider price as a factor in awarding professional service contracts.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:

Section 1. That the Metropolitan County Council hereby goes on record as requesting the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support the necessary legislation to allow the Metropolitan Government to provide an opportunity for local bidders to match the lowest bid in the award of procurement contracts, as well as to include price as a factor in awarding professional services contracts.

Section 2. That the Metropolitan Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Resolution to each member of the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly.

Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption, the welfare of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requiring it.

Sponsored by: Eric Crafton, Jim Gotto, Michael Craddock

I am most confused by this part: WHEREAS, qualified architect and engineering firms are often not given the opportunity to be considered for Metropolitan Government projects even though they could provide quality services at a lower fee

My big question is, “Why aren’t they given the opportunity?”  There are really only two answers.  It is either because they are too expensive or not qualified enough.  Both are problematic in terms of how this resolution pans out.  Architect A says, “It costs 3% for my services.”  Architect B says, “2.5%” but is not qualified to do the job.  Either Architect A takes the job at 2.5% and finds a way to recoup the 0.5% by doing less work or Architect B gets the job that he or she is unqualified to do.  I understand the need for reduced spending in times like these, but surely one can see the ramifications of such cost cutting measures.  How long would it take before another bid is taken to fix all the work that was not done correctly the first time (due to budget cuts or not being qualified to do the work in the first place)?  Ultimately, I see out of state architects taking more work from this.  It seems possible that most of the qualified architects in town simply will not do the jobs that don’t pay the bills.  So, the resolution, which is intended to keep local firms working on local work, could very easily do the opposite.  Local firms are familiar with local building practices and also familiar with local building officials and government agencies.  That should be your incentive for hiring them.  Qualifications and merit go hand-in-hand with cost regarding state projects.  This resolution only takes in to account the cost: a major short-sighted flaw.  Mr. Crafton, Mr. Gotto, and Mr. Craddock, stop with the silliness.

For those concerned with this, contact a councilman.

http://www.nashville.gov/council/feedback.aspx

 

Rolling Mill Hill as designed by qualified architect

Rolling Mill Hill as designed by qualified architect with budget cuts



Shelby Bottoms Nature Center as designed by qualified architect



Shelby Bottoms Nature Center as designed by low bid architect

-faD_writer