Surety Bonding and Owner‐Contractor Prequalification: Comparison
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Volume 116, Issue 4
Abstract
In the public sector, contract awards are typically made to the “lowest responsible bidder.” This term is defined by many contract‐awarding authorities as the contractor with the lowest bid who provides the bonds required by contract. Numerous professionals believe this approach is an inefficient and ineffective means to procure construction services. This paper provides a description of the competitive‐bid process along with a more complete definition of lowest responsible bidder. The definition incorporates bid responsiveness and bidder responsibility—criteria to measure both are outlined. A review of surety bonding is presented. Agencies have been dissatisfied with contractors' performance and quality of work under traditional procurement procedures. As a result, they have investigated and developed prequalification procedures. The potential role of these procedures are presented along with a comparison between surety bonding and owner contractor prequalification. A brief discussion of prequalification versus postqualification is also described.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“AGC fights competitive negotiation as a threat to public works bidding.” (1988). ENR, 221(15), 12–13.
2.
“Bidding procedures for major projects.” (1988). East Asian Executive Reports, 10(11), 8.
3.
“Bonding, insurance falling short.” (1988). ENR, 220(13), 38–43.
4.
Clough, R. H. (1981). Construction contracting, 4th Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
5.
Corwin, J. C. (1964). “Pre‐ or post‐qualification of bidders: Which is more effective?” Proc., Amer. Assoc. of State Highway Officials, Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., 163–168.
6.
Design and construction handbook. (1988). U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C.
7.
Downs, W. W. (1966). “A surety's basic rights and remedies,” Defense Law J., 15(5), 139.
8.
“FHWA weighs changes to low‐bid.” (1990). ENR, 224(1), 8.
9.
Lloyd, W. H. (1917). “The Surety,” Univ. of Pennsyllvania Law Review, 66, 40.
10.
Netherton, R. D. (1978a). “Competitive bidding and award of highway construction contracts.” Selected studies in highway law, J. C. Vance, ed., 3, 1125–1213.
11.
Netherton, R. D. (1978b). “Indemnification and suretyship in highway construction contracts,” Selected studies in highway law, J. C. Vance, ed., 3, 1231–1292.
12.
Netherton, R. D. (1978c). “Licensing and qualification of bidders,” Selected Studies in Highway Law, Vol. 3, Chapter 6, J. C. Vance, ed., pp. 1043–1122.
13.
Nettleton, E. T. (1948). “Recent experiences in pre‐qualifying bidders for construction projects.” Proc., 64th Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Soc. of Civ. Engineers, Hartford, Conn., 23–31.
14.
“Postal Service to ease rules on contractor prequalification.” ENR, (1989). 222(2), 7.
15.
“Procurement revamp, Postal Service, in search of quality, writes a new set of bidding rules.” (1987). ENR, 219(16), 77.
16.
Russell, J. S. (1988). “A knowledge‐based system approach to the contractor pre‐qualification process,” thesis presented to Purdue University, at West Lafayette, Ind., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
17.
Russell, J. S. (1990). “Surety indusrry: Overview.” J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 6(3), 323–341.
18.
Russell, J. S., and Skibniewski, M. J. (1988). “Decision criteria in contractor pre‐qualification.” J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 4(2), 148–164.
19.
Smith, R. J. (1987). “Recommended competitive bidding procedures for construction projects.” Document No. 1910‐9‐D, Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), Washington, D.C.
20.
Sweet, J. (1989). Legal aspects of architecture, engineering, and the construction process, 4th Ed., West Publishing Co., St.t Paul, Minn.
21.
A synthesis of the prequaliflcation procedures of six departments of transportation. (1985). Nittany Engineers and Management Consultants, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C.
22.
Value of new construction put in place. (1988). Bureau of Census, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Volume 116 • Issue 4 • October 1990
Pages: 360 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 1990
Published in print: Oct 1990
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.