March April 2018

2 The Oregon Surveyor | Vol. 41, No. 2 From the Editor Greg Crites, PLS Editor MESSAGE EDITOR FROM THE I witnessed what I perceived to be a major disappointment in contract performance on such projects from a taxpayer’s point of view. O ur chairman, Pat Gaylord, weighed in on an attempt by some public bodies to eliminate (or render sub- stantially ineffective) statutory language defining Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) as a means of awarding construc- tion contracts for significant public works projects in Oregon. I felt bound to add my opinion on this ill-conceived attempt to eliminate, what I believe, to be one of the best means of ensuring accountabili- ty and satisfactory contract performance in the public sector. I’m betting this edito- rial will get some blowback! Having spent much of my career working for a large consulting firm that actively pursued public works projects involving significant repairs and improvements to public infrastructure, I witnessed what I perceived to be a major disappoint- ment in contract performance on such projects from a taxpayer’s point of view. During the era when nearly all projects of this nature (e.g. bridge and highway construction, bridge repair, signalization, widening, striping and paving, to name a few) were awarded on a low bid basis, I often witnessed the questionable results. This often translated into cost overruns, construction delays, faulty workmanship and a disproportionate level of contract administration brought on by contracts being awarded to firms with no experience relating to the unique design elements in- volved in pioneering construction means and methods. In each circumstance the taxpayer ultimately shoulders the bill, and yet the taxpayer seldom ever sees these negative consequences in terms of their dollars and the squandering thereof. I can understand why small counties (as a for-instance) might not want to be shouldered with the added complexity of evaluating public works projects on a QBS basis, as some of them may lack the expertise to evaluate qualifications of prospective bidders. However, that in no way excuses opening the door to questionably qualified contractors or re- turning to a low-bid means of evaluation on large public works projects. This flies in the face of what QBS intended when it was originally added to the law. As a pro- fessional community that is tasked with protecting the public, surveyors have a duty to defend QBS at every attempt to overturn it. PLSO Lobbyist Darrell Fuller managed to help in getting this effort de- railed during the abbreviated legislative session, but he has assured us that the proponents of eliminatingQBSwill be back and armed to succeed during the next legislative session. Darrell has informed us that Representative Susan McLain has scheduled a QBS stakeholders meeting that PLSO will be participating in. If you are interested in lending your own expe- rience on this subject, take advantage of the member benefit of having your own lobbyist and contact him about it. We do need to be ready for their assault!  x