Study confirms benefits of quality-based selection for design professionals
A new independent study confirms the benefits of qualifications-based selection (QBS) when buyers and end users are in the market for professional services.
Prepared for QBS Canada, a coalition advocating for the use of QBS, and conducted by University of Colorado Boulder Professor Paul Chinowsky, the study concludes that QBS adds significant value and generates lower risk for purchasers.
“An adjustment in thinking about procurement will benefit buyers with significant additional value and lower risk when in the market for professional services such as architecture, engineering, construction management, IT and marketing consulting,” said QBS Canada president Cal Harrison. “The focus of QBS is first finding the most appropriately qualified consultant, and then starting the fee negotiation process, rather than the traditional RFP process that relies on cost as a first consideration.”
The study authors point out that QBS is particularly valuable in the built environment, where there is a strong association between its use, the quality of construction documents developed by the design team and the final cost and schedule performance.
The study also shows that QBS provides specific benefits to complex projects, where issues such as community engagement, political or social sensitivities and technical challenges in design or in construction, or management and collaboration of project participants, can make projects more challenging.
“The study found that QBS provides direct benefits in all phases of projects,” said Chinowsky. “From direct cost and schedule benefits to indirect benefits of reduced management issues and increased innovation, QBS demonstrates a clear benefit when applied across a series of project types and geographic regions.”
These advantages, say the authors, should motivate jurisdictions at all levels to re-examine the potential adoption of QBS in public projects.
They also argue that a coherent set of rules regarding QBS procurement would significantly benefit all jurisdictions.
Through QBS, suppliers first compete on experience and technical expertise, rather than price or the cheapest bid so that price is not an initial element of the QBS selection process.
The most qualified firm will then enter scope and price negotiations and settle on a fair price and clearly defined deliverables. If fair and reasonable fees cannot be agreed upon, negotiations commence with the second most qualified firm.
“Most people intuitively understand that by focussing on price and buying based on low cost, there is a significant risk of low-quality outcomes,” said Chinowsky. “Some buyers think QBS means price is not considered. It is, just not in the preliminary selection process where it is more important to identify the most qualified and the most capable supplier.”
“A vendor can’t win with an artificially low price, but it can lose on too a high price, which is the best possible scenario for taxpayers, governments and end-users,” Harrison added.