Comment 85027

By grahamm (registered) | Posted January 09, 2013 at 22:15:31

First, I agree with many of your points, especially that this contract should be reviewed. However, I would challenge your criticism of the City using Biddingo.

I work for an architectural firm that uses Biddingo to find work. While I agree that it looks bad in the context of this bid and the fact that you have to pay for a public document, I think its important to consider the wider picture.

Biddingo gives us a centralized database of open tenders for many Municipalities, City, Universities, Colleges, etc. We pay the $70 odd dollars for a bid package from Biddingo without question because of the time we save not having to search all the individual organization websites.

The service then also helps the organizations advertise their tenders more widely and ensures that all proponents receive all the same addenda which ensures fairness in tendering. it is not a good idea to put tender documents in two places (ie, on biddingo for $$ and on the City website for no charge) since both would have to be updated and therefore introduce the possibility of putting a document on one site and not the other.

Finally, I did a two minute search of organizations that use biddingo to illustrate how common its use is. Here is the list I came up with: City of Burlington, Hamilton Wentworth District School Board, Haldimand County, City of St Catharines, Toronto District School Board, University of Guelph, City of Toronto, University of Toronto.

Comment edited by grahamm on 2013-01-09 22:16:19

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds