High Performance Outcomes

Bid Poker High bid, low bid, right bid: every "Established Solution" has just one cost... Once a "solution" is established within a set of plans & specs, its resulting "cost" is likewise established. Other than human error during the "take off" or applying "proprietary management techniques", the bid-price from all players in a given market-place will be about the same. This is why we dis-trust bids too far outside the median bid-price: "something must be wrong" Contractors buy material, labor, and management for about the same cost in any given market, and as a result of market competition, all have about the same mark-up. Sure, some may have a slight advantage due to expertise, volume, or exclusivity on materials or labor. But those are fleeting in a competitive free market: the law of competition allows everyone to catch everyone .

If you're a Project Owner, and you have a "design-build acquisition methodology" that excites the market place and meets all of your "Project Outcome" needs, don't waste your time reading this post. Otherwise, here is the answer to the question, "How much in stipends should I pay the design-build competitors?" The context for this discussion is a  Fixed Price / Variable Solution  competition process using a performance-based design-build RFP Convention that includes a Problem-Based Contract . The question becomes, "What  opinions  do I need to see, and what are those opinions  worth ?" Design worth considering is design worth paying for. A proposed design solution that informs the owner during the Evaluation & Selection stage of an acquisition process can be the difference between excellence and disappointment. So, getting "valuable" proposed strategies and/or solutions (an opinionated answer) that satisfy your "