/View.info/ To guarantee construction for 500 years. This is just one of the insane conditions that construction companies that decide to participate in a public procurement tender are forced to meet, reports Standard.
Mayors are the most inventive in setting unfulfillable requirements, the participants in a forum organized by the Chamber of Builders were categorical. In addition to the huge guarantee for the construction or repair of buildings, the local authorities have insulted us with their other demands, say entrepreneurs. One of the surprising conditions in a construction competition is a description of the technique that the applicant must possess. In addition to the standard brand and technical characteristics, there was a requirement that the construction crane should rotate to the left. It is this “creativity” that is the reason why 90% of the tenders in the industry, which are for projects with European financing, are appealed or subsequently remain at the expense of the municipal budgets. At the meeting, the builders gave their suggestions to ease the work.
According to Rumen Yovchev, the deadline for the implementation of the project should be dropped as a requirement in the tenders. Currently, the short deadlines specified in the application documents are a very high chance of receiving the order. That is why companies speculate. For example, a company that said it would build a 4 km road near Pernik in just a month. As a result, the project was frozen and the work on it officially continued only when the road was ready, in order to fit into the deadline and not to lose the municipality’s European funding, Yovchev explained. Rosen Koleliev is of the opinion that in some competitions too much experience is required, which most companies do not have, and at the same time they have capacity and financial stability. Due to the tricks of the municipalities in the procurement, where it is clear that the goal is to favor one or another company, there is almost no tender that is not appealed. For some companies, complaints have become a sport. Thus, they deliberately slow down the work of competitors.
#guarantee #builders #years
**What specific changes to the tendering process, such as standardized evaluation criteria and publicly accessible documentation, could promote fairness and transparency, leveling the playing field for both large and small construction companies?**
## Building a Better System: An Interview on Public Procurement in Construction
**Introduction:**
Welcome to World Today News. Today we’re delving into the complex world of public procurement in the construction industry, examining the challenges faced by builders and the potential ramifications of current practices. We’ll be speaking to two experts in the field: Rumen Yovchev, [briefly mention Rumen’s credentials], and Rosen Koleliev, [briefly mention Rosen’s credentials].
**Section 1: Unrealistically High Requirements**
**Moderator:** Rumen, the article highlights the issue of seemingly impossible requirements in public tenders. A 500-year guarantee on construction, left-rotating cranes – these sound more like Alice in Wonderland than real-world construction. What’s behind these demands, and how do they impact your work?
**Rumen:** [Rumen responds, sharing specific examples and experiences, emphasizing the impracticality and burden these requirements place on companies.]
**Moderator:** Rosen, you mentioned that these “creative” conditions often lead to appeals and delayed projects. Can you elaborate on the consequences of this situation? How does it affect taxpayers, municipalities’ budgets, and project timelines?
**Rosen:** [Rosen discusses the negative ripple effects of these impractical tenders, focusing on the financial and logistical implications.]
**Section 2: The Role of Unrealistic Deadlines**
**Moderator:** The article also touches on the issue of deadline pressure in tenders. Rumen, you argue that these tight deadlines encourage speculation and potentially lead to rushed, compromised projects. Can you walk us through an example where this happened, and what the consequences were?
**Rumen:** [Rumen provides a specific example of a project where unrealistic deadlines resulted in negative outcomes, highlighting the need for more reasonable expectations. ]
**Moderator:** Rosen, do you agree with Rumen’s assessment? What alternative approaches could be used to ensure projects are delivered on-time without compromising quality and safety?
**Rosen:** [Rosen adds his perspective on the issue of deadlines, offering potential solutions like phased project planning and performance-based contracts.]
**Section 3: Fairness and Transparency**
**Moderator:** Both of you have mentioned the lack of transparency and fairness in the tendering process. Rosen, you even highlighted instances where it seemed like some companies had an unfair advantage. What specific practices need to change to ensure a level playing field for all bidders?
**Rosen:** [Rosen elaborates on the issues of bias and lack of transparency, offering concrete suggestions for improving the selection process, such as standardized evaluation criteria and publicly accessible documentation.]
**Moderator:** Rumen, how can smaller construction companies compete in a system that seems designed to favor established players? What support mechanisms could be put in place to encourage fairer competition?
**Rumen:** [Rumen discusses the challenges faced by smaller companies and suggests solutions like capacity-building programs, mentoring, and ensuring access to financing for smaller businesses.]
**Conclusion:**
**Moderator:** Thank you both for your insights. This conversation highlights the urgent need for reform in the public procurement system for construction.
Open and honest dialog, like the one we’ve had today, is crucial for creating a more efficient, transparent, and fair system that benefits both construction companies and the public. We encourage our viewers to engage in thisimportant conversation and demand better from our public institutions.
