By Bruce Jervis
Public project owners use additive, deductive or alternate bid items for a good reason. The practice gives owners flexibility to arrive at a scope of work that fits their project budget and provides them with the most project for that budget. The use of alternate bid items also complicates the process, however. It is a common source of disputes.
Many bid protests involve the treatment of alternate bid items in the evaluation and comparison of bids. Some critics contend the practice enables public project owners to manipulate the sealed bidding process, customizing a scope of work which will result in a favored bidder being the low bidder.
Alternate bid items also cause scope of work disputes. In a recent Indiana case, an electrical subcontractor contended that when the owner did not elect to include an emergency generator in the contract, wiring to the generator pad, stipulated in base scope of work, was effectively deleted from the contract. The subcontractor lost that argument.
What has your experience been with alternate bid items? Do the advantages of the device justify the complexity it adds? What are some “best practice” pointers for avoiding bid protests and scope of work disputes arising out of the use of alternate bid items? I welcome your comments.
