Guest commentary: Good things happened on the way to a new school

It’s a common misconception that government entities are required to use competitive bidding. Although that used to be the case, the state legislature changed the law around 20 years ago to permit Texas school districts to choose contractors without regard to price. The most common methods currently used to choose contractors for new schools are “competitive sealed proposals” (a form of competitive bidding) and “construction manager at risk.”

With manager at risk, a contractor is chosen on the basis of experience, reputation, safety record, and other factors, before the blueprints for the school have been completed. Price is negotiated later.

Industry lobbying drove the move to allow contractors to be chosen this way, in Texas and other states. After the change, Clemson University compared the costs in four southern states for new schools built using competitive bidding with those built using manager at risk. Competitive bidding saved the taxpayers almost 30 percent per square foot and per student. The bottom line: Competition saves taxpayers money.

Another misconception is that competitive bidding forces a school district to choose the lowest bid even if that contractor is inexperienced or does shoddy work. But the form of competitive bidding that the trustees chose allows the district to consider each bidder’s experience, safety record, personnel and financial capacity.

Those factors can be given various weights but at least half the points awarded to each bidder must be for its price. The idea is to give every contractor with the requisite experience and capacity a fair chance to win the work, get the best price for the public, and protect the school district from bidders who are not qualified.

The second good thing was the trustees’ decision to hire a professional project management firm to act as the district’s agent on the project. Its construction managers and engineers will verify that all work has been completed and all materials received before the district pays a draw request and scrutinize change orders.

It will charge the district by the hour rather than a percentage of cost, so that its interests will not conflict with the district’s. The cost of the project manager will be recuperated by the savings it generates.

Fortunately, the trustees hired the project management firm early in the meeting, before the board had to choose between competitive bidding and manager at risk.

When the time came for a decision, a trustee asked for the management firm’s opinion. Worried about the outcome, I held my breath. The firm’s spokesman recommended competitive bidding, which clinched it. The vote was unanimous.