Few people enjoy having their buttons pushed. And I would think even fewer would gladly take the time for someone to sit on them, bounce around a few times and swish their bottom around to test the comfort level. Let’s leave that special experience to the equipment on display at shows like ConExpo-Con/Agg.
However, over in Europe road and bridge agencies are indeed “testing out” the contractor. It was just one of many practices revealed when a team, consisting of representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, state transportation agencies, private industry and academia toured Canada, England, Scotland, Germany and the Netherlands.
It’s called past-performance ratings. Under the system, contractors are rated on completed projects, and those ratings are incorporated into an overall qualification rating. The contractors with strong qualification scores are the only ones allowed to bid on certain projects. The team admits creating a similar system in the U.S. would be a large and expensive undertaking. Not only does it require a bipartisan rating system and an enormous database for all the scores, but contractors could challenge the rewards program in a court of law.
I want to know how a startup road or bridge building outfit will survive with this system. We all remember the challenges of landing the first job out of college. Holding a journalism degree I had my share of “we’ll file your resume for a year in case something comes up.” Heck, I’m pretty sure I had enough of those to fill an entire filing cabinet. And when I finally did receive my break, it wasn’t under the most glorious of conditions. I covered high school sporting events, and for traveling 20-25 miles and pounding out a story under a stressful 30 minutes I received a killer $25 paycheck.
Young contractors would probably face a similar fate under the European rating system. Since they obviously couldn’t compete with the “all-star” companies, the projects leftover probably require traveling 200-250 miles and pounding out a pavement under a stressful 300 minutes for a killer $250,000 paycheck. And if the top 10 continue to crank out high score after high score, how does one crack the list of elites? Do you have to wait around for one to stumble, then hope upon hope that your score, which may be identical to hundreds of others, stands out? European warranties and lump-sum payments also impressed the touring Americans. As a way to ensure quality, warranties are used excessively to the north and overseas. All of the countries used some form of guaranteed work in contracts for work that involved bridges, pavements, drainage, landscaping, earthwork, lights and pavement markings.
I’m a big fan of the word “guarantee.” I believe everyone should be held accountable for their work—even if it is 10-15 years later. But one has to be fair about it. If an agency predicts a 10% increase in traffic over the life of a project and the real figure turns out to be 25% it’s hard to blame a contractor if the pavement or bridge shows early signs of aging. Like resolving the health care problem in this country, I think warranties are very complex in nature. Perhaps that is the reason why this industry has somewhat backed off the topic. This foreign display, however, could rekindle the debate.
Lump-sum payments are probably the most intriguing of the methods. In Scotland, the Netherlands and England, lump-sum payments create incentives for the work to be completed on time or ahead of schedule. The contractor is paid once the lane is open for traffic.
It all seems like a novel idea, but what is wrong with the system in place in the U.S.? It seems every contractor these days finishes ahead of schedule, and most receive quality incentives as well.
In general, I think international scanning tours are a great way to see what the other guy is doing. Countries like Japan, Germany and England constantly have an idea or two to generate. Sometimes, however, the buttons just don’t work the same way in the U.S.
