On tenders

There's no end of advice on calling and evaluating tenders for building/construction services, whether professional or trades, it would seem. This is suggestive of a problem not yet solved.

One of the most popular approaches is to seek tenders that satisfy listed performance or capability criteria and achieve the lowest price while demonstrating high performance. Quite a tension!

In the UK the desire is to fine the Most Economically Advantageous Tender ("MEAT") where price and performance criteria are melded in the hope of representing a meaningful measure of overall benefit to the principal.

As in other places, the performance criteria are usually given some type of qualitative or impressionistic but hardly objective, repeatable or reliably reproducible score. The various criteria are then 'weighted' by an equally subjective and probably unreliable method. The 'dartboard approach' to tender evaluation.

The prices are 'normalised', removing information, and the result is multiplied by the weighted performance score and it is imagined that knowledge is produced!

Patrice Fabien has written on this topic with some insight into its limitations.

I'd like to propose a better way than the hit or miss that is common.

The performance criteria need to be characterised by sub-criteria so that the evaluation can be objective, with scores given on the basis of countable items. For example, running from:

0 = meets no sub-criterion up to
...
5 = meets all major and minor sub-criteria.

The weighting is best achieved using a system such as pair-wise analysis, as explained in the MITRE STEP methodology, and precisely in the evaluation system.

In my view, this produces a reliable and reasonably objective performance or capability score for the project performance.

This score is then subjected to a threshold for progression to the price evaluation.

The threshold might be set as an absolute minimum acceptable score, or minima that must be achieved on a number of criteria. Thus a low score on identified criteria will eliminate the tender from further consideration. After all, there is no point considering an offer that fails to deliver, no matter what the cost!

The next step is the price comparison.

Only those scores that meet or exceed the threshold should be considered at this point. If there is a large field over the threshold, a 'countback' through the scores might be used on a criteria basis (tenders with lower scores on critical criteria eliminated or only the highest 'n' scores considered.

Rather than mathematically normalise the prices (which destroys important information) to produce a 'score' then multiply this and the performance score, it is preferable to proportion scores against the lowest 'above the threshold' price.

This proportions the price by performance, in effect, pricing the performance.

The result looks like this:

Good Design

Lots of talk about 'good' design. But precious little on its parameters. Sometimes the 'good' transmogrifies from effectiveness to moral rectitude, touching other way-stations on its travels.

There are a few lists around of dimensions of good design.

One of the most famous is Dieter Rams' 10 principles by which good design is:

1. Innovative
2. Makes a product useful
3. Aesthetic
4. Makes a product understandable
5. Unobtrusive
6. Honest
7. Long-lasting
8. Thorough down to the last detail
9. Environmentally friendly
10. As little design as possible

Some of these are meaningful. Others are empty, arbitrary or judgemental. For instance, "honest." Really? "Unobtrusive"? Not good if you are designing the entry to the Emergency Department of a hospital. "Aesthetic"? Aesthetic what? Good, bad or ugly...they are all 'aesthetics'. Aesthetics is about beauty, it doesn't mean beauty itself. "Environmentally 'friendly' ". Peurile and unhelpful.

Archdaily sets out a little more description on this same list.

Here's another attempt.

Parsimoniously fit for purpose.

Easy to say, hard to do. That covers 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 of Dieter's list.

Let's look at the coverage:

1. "Innovative" without purpose is waste. The wheel is good, but we innovated to tracks when they were better. Tracks on a racing car would be no good! Innovation for its own sake without a driver external to the object of attention is also waste; and possibly frivolous. On the other hand, if it takes us to unexpected benefits or stimulates external unexpected benefits, opportunities and investment, then all the better.

2. "Makes a product useful"

Of course, 'fit for purpose'. Noting that the wider 'purpose' is cast, the more better (!) the design is. The best design is produced on the back of deep understanding of all the drivers of purpose. These can range from an investors' objectives, to users' objectives, usability, lifetime costs, usable life, the applicable objectives of others who have in interest in the subject...and so it goes.

4. "Makes a product understandable"

Same as previous.

7. "Long lasting"

Better: lasts as long as necessary. A stage built for a temporary festival that would last 1000 years is not what we want...although some stages build for permanent use have lasted well over 1000 years.
If it lasts too long, the risk of over use of resources or over investment in the subject occurs.

9. "Environmentally friendly"

I've never known what this means, nor does anyone else, I suggest, as it is used to promote all sorts of political and commercial agendas.

Here's what we are after: Meets environmental requirements and in an overall sense, parsimiony of materials, effort, operation and ownership leading to minimal consumption of resources: just enough consumption to meet the user need, and just enough consumption through maintenance and cleaning. There is also a cost-performance trade off with any measures that are not core to the purpose of the design subject. Over-investment in one 'environmental' outcome will reduce the capacity to achieve other environmental or general product outcomes.

Uses inputs (materials, components and execution techniques) compatible with requirements.

This meets Dieter's 7, 8, 9, 10.

The core parameter is cost-effective deployment of industry capability. This can include innovations that are brought about, of course, but it is hardly good design if a product is impossible to achieve economically or with other consequential 'dis-benefits'.

Nothing meets number 6. To help think about 'honesty' in design, compare the 'honesty' of a CT scanner without the cover. Honest? Helpful for an anxious patient? Easy to keep clean? I don't think so, and darn scary when it starts spinning.

Enjoyable to own, use, operate.

Dieter's numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.

Enjoyable is hardly the word; perhaps enjoyable for the use: a hospital foyer's 'enjoyable' would be able to reassure patients, encourage staff and attract visitors. An opera house foyer: enthrall, excite, stimulate?

Enjoyable relates to practicality, affect, and aesthetic perception appropriate in the product's context.

Thus, in keeping with Dieter's number 10 my list is 3, his is 10. Less is more.

Another take on lists is my five item version:

Usable
In every way suiting the needs of the users, owners and investors: even the needs they don't realise for functional fit, comfort, future adaptability, etc.

Affordable
Again, in every way: value for money in selection of materials, systems, components, operations, maintenance and future adaptability. This is an umbrella 'economy' including use of energy and maximisation of passive climatic adaption.


Buildable
No mucking around by the builder and his supply chain to realise the design.


Enjoyable
As above in the list of three. This can go from 'merely' comfortable, to spectacular, depending on the building's role.

Readable
This is as broad as you need it. As one uses, passes by and/or views the building, what it does, is and provides to the place, the user and its viewers is comprehensible. That is, the building represents its performance 'strategy' to the user and community. This can extend to contextually adapted (a 'good neigbour'), 'coded' for its purpose by the visual/tectonic and spatial language of the design, tells the user what the user needs to understand: where one does what. For example the entrance presents itself to the user for comfortable and helpful usage (back to 'usable'). An opera house, conveys that it is a special, fun and enjoyable place to be, etc.