Standards & Practices

Bid Depository
In the interest of maintaining a fair and equitable process for the submission of trade contractor bids to general contractors, the BCCA supports and encourages the use of the provincial bid depository system. Bid depository is recommended for trades with an estimated value of $50,000 or greater on all institutional, commercial, industrial or mult-family residential projects valued at over $500,000.  This includes being applicable for all civil projects that have a structural building component of over $500,000 (excluding Division 2 trades with the exception of landscaping and asphalt paving).

Bidding And Contract Award Procedures
BCCA endorses the bidding and contract award practices and procedures outlined in CCDC 23 - 'A Guide to Calling Bids and Awarding Contracts' and the Public Construction Council's Procedures and Guidelines Recommended for Use on Publicly Funded Construction Projects.

Cash Allowances
The November 2004 version of A Guide to the Use of Cash Allowances represents the Association's policy on Cash Allowances. Click here for the detailed policy in PDF format

Construction Management
For a guideline to the use of Construction Management refer to the CCA 26 A Guide to the Construction Management Project Delivery Method (available through one of the 4 Regional Construction Associations in BC).

Design-build
The March 1997 version of the BCCA Recommended Policy & Procedure for Publicly Funded Design-Build Projects represents the Association's policy on Design-Build. Click here for the detailed policy in PDF format

Faxed Revision
It is important to the industry that owners provide the ability to revise tenders by fax. The onus is on the contractor to have the revision to the designated location at the designated time thus providing the owners with the most competitive prices.

BCCA endorses the use of faxed tender revisions to the original tender.

Procedure:

• All monetary revisions to tender amounts must be stated as an addition or deletion to the tendered price.
• All monetary revisions to separate, alternate or unit prices should e stated as a new price in lieu of an addition to or deduction from the submitted price.
• The tender closing information should include the fax number for sending revisions and a phone number for confirming receipt of revision.
• Any fax revising the original tender must be clearly legible. Monetary revisions to the tender amount must be stated numerically and in writing.
• All faxed revisions must be date and time stamped immediately upon receipt.
• For faxed revisions, the clock used for the official tender closing time shall govern.
• No faxed revision will be accepted after tender closing.
• No tenders will be opened until after the eligible faxed revisions are received at the place of tender opening.
• Where a faxed amendment is received at the fax number provided in the invitation to tender and the time of receipt is deemed valid, this faxed amendment should be accepted even though said fax is not at the location of the opening.
• Contractors are warned that faxed revisions to tenders are submitted solely at the risk of the contractor until such time as they have been received by the tendering authority.

Industry Standard Documents
BCCA support the use of standard documents, developed and endorsed by the industry, as a means of promoting standard practices and procedures within the industry and vigorously opposes the implementation of supplementary General Conditions which have the effect of altering or subverting the intent or substance of these documents.

Inter-provincial Trade & Work Barriers
BCCA recommends that all forms of discrimination, which are based on preference for 'local' businesses be eliminated.

BCCA favours the free and unfettered movement of construction materials, services and personnel throughout every region of Canada. Existing regional barriers and preference policies should be removed in accordance with an established timetable for their elimination.

With respect to publicly funded procurement, BCCA believes that:

The specification of construction materials and installed equipment on publicly funded projects within Canada should be guided solely by price, quality and availability considerations, without any regard to the origin or source of supply within Canada of such materials or installed equipment.

The selection and use of construction materials, machinery, equipment and personnel on publicly funded projects in Canada should not be limited in any respect by the origin or source of supply in Canada of such materials, machinery, equipment or personnel.

Competitive bids on publicly funded construction projects in Canada should not be evaluated whatsoever on the basis of:

• the location of a bidder in a particular region of Canada, or
• the local or regional content of the bid
• Procurement by all levels of government within Canada should not be used as a regional development tool where the net result is to prefer the local sourcing of construction materials, services, or personnel to the disadvantage of other sources within Canada.
• Until the above objective is met, BCCA recommends that where the location of a bidder in a particular region of Canada, or the local content of the bid is to be a consideration in the evaluation of the bids or in the selection of the successful bidder, that information and related process be clearly spelled out to all bidders by the tender calling authority at the time of the initial call.

Overbudget Negotiation Process
If the lowest compliant bid exceeds the Owner's budgeted amount, and the Owner is unwilling or unable to award a contract at the bid price but is unwilling to abandon the project, the following guidelines for a course of action are recommended:

• Where the amount by which the bid price must be reduced is less than 15% of the lowest compliant bid, the first step should be to negotiate with the lowest compliant bidder (only) to identify changes in the scope or quality of the work and a corresponding bid price reduction.  Where the Owner and lowest compliant bidder can agree on acceptable changes and a corresponding bid price reduction, the changes should be documented as a post-bid addendum and the contract, based on the negotiated reduced price, should be awarded to the lowest compliant bidder.  However, where acceptable changes and a corresponding bid price reduction cannot be successfully negotiated with the lowest compliant bidder, the second step should be to re-bid on modified Bid Documents under a new bid call.  Negotiations should be limited exclusively to the lowest compliant bidder.
• Where the amount by which the bid price must be reduced exceeds 15% of the lowest compliant bid, the bid-calling authority may immediately undertake either of the preceding steps described above, at its descretion.  That is, the Owner may negotiate with the lowest compliant bidder first to re-bid on modified Bid Documents without any attempt to negotiate.

Re-bidding should be avoided whenever possible because of the additional time and costs incurred by all parties.  Where a re-bid is unavoidable, the Bid Documents should be sufficiently modified to achieve a reduced bid price that will be acceptable to the Owner.

A standard 'privilege clause' in the bidding requirements would give the Owner the right to not accept any bid, thereby permitting the Owner to either abandon the project or reject all bids, and subsequently invite a re-bid on modified Bid Documents under a new bid call.  However, since it is recommended that the Owner negotiate with the lowest compliant bidder in some circumstances, it is important that the bidding requirements include a clause giving the Owner, if necessary, the right to negotiate a reduced price with the lowest compliant bidder.

Refundable Plan Deposits
Bidding documents should be made available to bidders for the least cost possible. In order of preference the BCCA suggests these options:

• a fully refundable deposit system for documents returned in the prescribed condition
• an industry managed document deposit program
• an industry coordinated document refund system
  • Example: 
    • 5 bidders x $500
    • All bidders include $2,500
    • Purchase from unsuccessful bidder at $500 each
• an industry managed document production and sale system that minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, the cost of bid documents

Request for Proposals

BCCA supports the se of the Canadian Design Build Institute Document 210 RFP Guideline, as the guideline for all RFPs.

Reverse Auctions
CCA recognizes the value and benefits on Internet-based tendering and bidding, and endorses its use when intended to increase the efficiency of the construction tendering process. CCA actively supports the development, in concert with owners, contractors and other construction industry representatives, of appropriate guidelines for the use of electronic bidding practices. The concept of a bidding auction is contrary to the principles of recommended construction procurement practices, and as such, is strongly opposed by CCA and its constituent representatives. CCA therefore recommends that electronic bidding and tendering procedures comply with the provisions outlined in CCDC23 'A Guide to Calling Bids and Awarding Contracts.'

Separate, Alternate And Unit Prices
In the interest of maintaining clarity in the submission of amendments to Separate, Alternate and Unit Prices during a tender closing, BCCA endorses the policy that all monetary revisions to separate, alternate or unit prices should be stated as a new price in lieu of an addition to or deduction form the submitted price.

Tender Documents
Bidding documents should be made available to bidders for the least cost possible. In order of preference the BCCA suggests these options:

• a fully refundable deposit system for documents returned in the prescribed condition
• an industry managed document deposit program
• an industry coordinated document refund system
  • Example: 
    • 5 bidders x $500
    • All bidders include $2,500
    • Purchase from unsuccessful bidder at $500 each
• an industry managed document production and sale system that minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, the cost of bid documents

Tender Document Deposits
BCCA advocates and supports the national industry position of a refundable deposit system for tender documents.

Rationale:

• A non-refundable deposit system introduces a cost, which regardless of who initially pays, will ultimately increase the cost of construction. This is detrimental to both the owners and industry.
• Non-refundable deposits are an additional charge imposed upon contractors, which may discourage qualified bidders from bidding. Contractors already incur considerable costs in the preparation and submission of bids.
• Non-refundable deposits particularly penalize interested bidders who are not in close proximity to plan rooms where the project documents are available for viewing.
• A refundable deposit policy is environmentally responsible. Tender documents under a non-refundable system will be thrown away despite the need for many new sets by the successful bidder. Our industry encourages all owners to practice and implement the 3 R's (Reduce, Recycle and Reuse) recommended by governments.
• The provision of plans and specifications to interested bidders is a normal cost of project development that quite properly should not be borne by bidders who already provide a valuable service through the competitive bidding process.
• As contractors typically review the tender documents prior to deciding to tender, potentially interested and competitive contractors will be reluctant to request plans under a non-refundable policy.
• The imposition of non-refundable policy creates a system of procurement, which discriminates on the basis of ability to pay and proximity to local plan rooms, which should never be considered, particularly when a project is funded by taxpayers.
• The use of a non-refundable deposit system strains the good working relationship owners and design authorities currently enjoy with the construction industry.
• Refundable deposits, relative to the nature and size of the project, will deter frivolous requests for tender documents and penalize only those who abuse the refundable deposit system by not returning the plans in good condition.