In a discussion about suppliers complaining they never hear about the results of the quotations they submit, one buyer said “It is none of the vendor’s business on how the buyer awarded the contract”. Surely this buyer would never have said this to the supplier’s face, but the buyer was absolutely adamant that no provisions should be made to inform the supplier on why they were not awarded the contract. This buyer went on to explain that sometimes the contract was not awarded to the low bidder, indicating that if the suppliers had this information it would just start a confrontation. The buyer also stated that if the supplier knew what the other offers were, then all vendors would ultimately start bidding the same low price.

  Don’s philosophy is, “Every supplier I deal with is entitled to any information I have that will make them a better business person in the future. We should treat each and every vendor openly, honestly and provide as much information as we possibly can after all prices are submitted.” And the buyers should do this not because they are a local governmental agency, but because the suppliers are their customers and it is good business. For example, once a supplier knows by how much they missed the low price they will re-look at their offer to see how they could have improved their price for the next bid. Remember that as the supplier improves their techniques, the buyer’s savings and the supplier’s services improve.

  Another way to keep the suppliers informed is to utilize a fax-on-demand system to allow anyone to review bids and quotes received. This unit reduces a lot of phone calls for information to the staff and buyers because it is available to the public, suppliers and the using departments 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Even though it is time consuming, you should also encourage call backs to unsuccessful minority and small businesses to not only give them the information but to also give them any advice that we can, without being unethical.

  It is repugnant that there are still buyers who believe they can award a contract to anyone other then the lowest bidder without first objectively determining that the lowest bidder was either non-responsive or non-responsible. Then the buyer should call the bidder to communicate the basis for the rejection. If the buyer did their job in writing good specifications then there would be no reason to skip over the best bidder to award a contract to another bidder who the buyer “feels” can supposedly do a better job.

  Editor’s note: this is a summarized reprint of Don’s article in the NPI Newsletter.

© 1997 by Donald L. Woods, All Rights Reserved