<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">  <title>Light fixtures</title> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Much of this depends on state laws that affect bidding.  In <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Texas</st1:place></st1:State> it used to be that a project under $5,000 bidding was not necessary.  I think (but don’t know) that this has been raised to $10,000.  People have been known to break projects into less-than-state-limits sub-projects (1> replacement parts for piano X  2> regulate new parts for piano X).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> dp<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> David M. Porritt<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:dporritt@smu.edu">dporritt@smu.edu</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:30 AM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] bid savvy<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Lance,<o:p></o:p> <div>             That's a great question. The short answer is no, I don't know of any such thing. But it raises all sorts of issues, from standards to qualifications, with communication thrown in for good measure. And it exposes the bid process as the abomination it is, since we do lack ways to define these things. We (the caut committee) are inching along in that direction, but it's a troublesome thing to do (suggestions are welcome any time).<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>             For the present, the university can try to limit bids to people who meet certain standards: RPT, years experience, factory training programs, people whose work has been examined and found acceptable, these are a few suggestions. How to describe the work they want done? I'm not sure factory spec is going to lead to the results they want. Concert level prep might describe it (assuming that is, indeed, what they are after). But of course that is going to be dependent on the skills of the bidder. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>             I'd emphasize skill, and focus on "body of work": bidder to provide references and access to pianos he/she has worked on. See if the state bid laws (I assume that's what you're dealing with) have flexibility to allow for that kind of thing. Probably under professional service contract regulations, for legal services and the like (as opposed to things like building contracts). Structure the bid to emphasize qualifications over price, probably by a rating system, where you give, say, 60% to qualifications, 40% to price. You could have a team of maybe three evaluators, each of whom rates the bidders as to qualifications. Each of them goes out and examines the sample workmanship. We do something similar in our bidding process for purchasing pianos at UNM.<o:p></o:p> <div> <div> Regards,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Fred Sturm<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">New Mexico</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <a href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</a><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:42 PM, <<a href="mailto:lafargue@bellsouth.net">lafargue@bellsouth.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> <div> Sorry if this is a duplicate, My other computer doesn't appear to be posting this msg.....<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Can anyone advise me on advising a university here on how to word a bid to techs and maximize the chance of getting what they want as far as level of work.  I mean, is "to factory spec"the only thing they can use as a standard to level the playing field on bidders? If they asked for a price on regulating a piano, seven techs will do more than one level of work and charge different amounts and all be able to call it a "regulation" (and factory spec is not even optimum at the highest levels).  They can ask for bids for concert tuning and voicing and get lots of different levels of work, even from RPT's.  Are there sources of info on handling this and optimizing the chances of getting what they are paying for?  The whole system just doesn't seem to be conducive to getting good quality work, just the cheapest price.   Thanks in advance.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Lance Lafargue, RPT<o:p></o:p><O:P></O:P> LAFARGUE PIANOS, LTD<o:p></o:p> <O:P></O:P> <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New Orleans</st1:place></st1:City> Chapter, PTG<O:P></O:P><o:p></o:p> 985.72P.IANO<o:p></o:p><O:P></O:P> <O:P><a href="mailto:lafargue@bellsouth.net">lafargue@bellsouth.net</a></O:P><o:p></o:p> <O:P><a href="http://www.lpianos.com/">www.lpianos.com</a></O:P><o:p></o:p> <O:P><a href="http://www.lafarguepianos.com/"></a></O:P> <o:p></o:p> <O:P></O:P> <o:p></o:p> <O:P> <o:p></o:p></O:P> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>