[bko]

I see two approaches to general government contracting. One is the proactive approach which would require some government agency to find "approved" vendors and micromanage the project. The other would be a liability approach, which would essentially mean that the overall goal of a project is provided and the lowest bid is taken across a large pool of contractors. However, if it is built very poorly and someone gets hurt, the contractor would be liable in court. The proactive approach has its appeal, but often results in higher costs and not necessarily better quality since the vendors and requirements are set by politicians and unaccountable, unelected committees.

I believe we are closer to the first in most cities, but I would much rather prefer the second.

[evgen]

The second falls victim to fly-by-night contracting companies that are created for a specific project and then disappear in a puff of smoke once it is done and their check clears. The liability approach fails constantly because the vendor is able to easily shield themselves from the liability and then the public is left holding the bag. If the public is going to end up being the only available deep pockets for such torts then it has the responsibility to make sure that the project is built to a sufficient standard to not endanger the public and to meet the specified goals.