was part of the backup material for a city council agenda item the other day. The purchasing department was ranking various vendors for the purpose of deciding who to buy from.
I found the awarding of zero points in the category of “Reputation and Quality of the Bidder’s Service” to one of our oldest dealerships interesting. Further down the page they have the category of “Past Performance” where the city gave the dealership a rating of 5, the highest value that could be given.
The dealership has a good reputation for service. Their quality has been fine in the past. Given that no organization is perfect I can see that the city might not have given them the maximum of 20 points on this item. However the city gave them a zero, meaning to me that the city considers the dealer’s reputation and service quality to be horrible, non-existent, not worth considering.
The dealer offered one of the two lowest prices. It is interesting to note that the other dealer with one of the lowest prices was also given a zero in the same category.
Could it be that city staff found the bidders prices to be inconvenient? Would staff have had to give the business to someone that they might not like just because of price? Did they use low ratings in the reputation and quality category just to knock out the two low bidders?
Also interesting is the “Vehicle Fuel Economy” category. The dealership that the city has chosen to give the business to received the maximum 5 points that could be given here. All of the other dealerships were given a zero.
How can that be? It would seem to me that we would see some other numbers here. Or is the city saying that the losing dealerships were offering vehicles that used an infinite amount of fuel?
We deserve better