Construction Information Technology Blog

All about online bidding

Posted by Dave Robertson on Aug 31, 2012 9:30:00 AM

Try googling “online bidding”. It is several pages deep that you find the first reference to anything relating to construction bidding. Try “construction online bidding” or “online bidding construction”. Again, several pages deep (except for the references to our company or clients) before there are any results related to the actual submission of bids online. My point … there is clearly a general lack of clarity around what “online bidding” actually is.

I follow several blogs and a number of industry publications and for the most part the phrase online bidding is used in reference to the ability to access a planroom (plansroom, plan room) or a bid opportunity notification service. The reality is that technology has advanced significantly and it is now possible to consider online bidding in the full context of its meaning including the complete bid submission process.

There are ten key elements to a complete online bidding system including:

online bidding complete elements1. Bid Advertisement – If the project is not by invitation only it is important to be able to notify interested bidders that there is an opportunity to bid on.

2. Invitation to bid – For when there are bidders who are to be proactively advised of the opportunity.

3. Prequalification – For some projects the bidders must demonstrate their competence and ability to complete the work prior to being invited to submit a bid.

4. Document Distribution – Distributing the drawings, specifications and any supplementary information is an essential element of the process. When properly integrated into the system there is no possibility of missing or incomplete information being used in the formulation of a bid submission.

5. Addenda Notification and Distribution – All bidders must be quickly notified of any new addenda and be provided quick and easy access to the information to avoid delays or errors in the submission of bids.

6. Creation of the Bid Form – The system must provide the ability to securely create the bid form including all the varied elements that make up a construction bid at a minimum including; base bid, separate prices, alternate prices, unit prices, cash allowances, stipulated sums, tax clauses, bond requirements, time to completion, labour units and other required schedules.

7. Submission of Bid Security – The bid bond when specified is an integral and essential element of a complete bid submission and must be able to be included as part of the bid package.

8. Submission of the Bid – The ability for bidders to follow their normal practices when preparing the complete submission is essential. It must be a fully secure environment that offers the ability to; apply for and receive a bid bond, allow others in the bidding company to work on the submission if required, withdraw the bid prior to closing time if required and of course enter all required elements of the bid call.

9. Bid Tabulation – Once the bid closing time had been reached the recipient must be able to easily compare and evaluate the information using a tabulated set of bid responses.

10. An Audit Trail – A complete and accurate log of all the activities required to complete this process is essential to assist in avoiding and resolving issues of non-compliance or claims arising from missing or incomplete information.

These 10 elements when enabled within a secure and reliable IT infrastructure combine to form a complete bidding system that provides every participant in the process the tools and information they need to successfully complete the aspect of the bidding process that they are responsible for.

So … as you might have already guessed, I think it is time to reframe the references to online bidding. It is much more than just the ability to view a document online or send out invitations to bid. When viewed as a system it is a more efficient and effective way to deliver online bid submissions that are complete, compliant and easily evaluated.

 

Topics: Online bidding, Construction bidding, Construction industry

Infinite Source continues to Innovate

Posted by Dave Robertson on Aug 15, 2012 5:00:00 AM

Infinite Source Systems Corp. is launching its latest innovative service today. Our years of experience delivering high quality online services combined with our ability to deliver practical, user friendly innovation have resulted in a new industry leading service called i.s. on demand. It is a low cost, secure subscription based document control and bid management system that is expected to quickly replace ftp sites and brown envelopes as the industry standard for sharing information and submitting bids.

Since 1997 our technology solutions have been used to manage and control the project documents for tens of thousands of projects delivering huge cost savings and efficiencies. In 2010 we began delivering bid management solutions and since then our technology has been used to receive thousands of bid submissions eliminating the need for the physical production and transportation of bids to a closing location. i.s. on demand takes the best of these two solutions and combines them in an innovative and highly competitive new service. Users simply sign up and start using it.

i.s. on demand

The service is offered directly to anyone wanting to use it at infinitesource.com or through a growing network of distributors throughout North America and New Zealand. At a price point of $10 per month or $100 per year for unlimited use of the system to manage documents and receive bids it offers unparalleled value. There is much more innovation in the Infinite Source pipeline and subscribers will benefit from our continuous efforts to provide the best possible solutions at the best possible price.

Topics: Online bidding, Company announcements, Electronic document management

Construction Bidding Court Case #5 – Alternate Prices

Posted by Dave Robertson on May 24, 2012 9:45:00 AM

Learn how PlanSource could help construction professionals to significantly reduce the risk of costly delays or claims arising from errors or omission from real court cases.

The traditional bidding process for construction projects involves a considerable amount of paperwork and information being shared between owners, contractors, and sub-contractors. Typically, bid documents and various addenda are issued during the bidding process before the bid closing date. Instructions provided in these documents are specific and require each bidder to comply implicitly or their bid submission will be rejected as non-compliant.

At times however, the issuance and distribution of addenda can cause uncertainty or misunderstanding among bidders as to the proper procedure or requirement for completion of the bid form. The following court case illustrates how such uncertainty created by a poorly issued addendum caused the bidders to be non-compliant with the language governing the submission of the bid:

  • The Instructions to Bidders required submission of complete package in sealed envelope.

  • The project was for the construction of an apartment building

  • Bid documents were distributed to the bidders and then various and numerous addenda were issued for both general and mechanical items.

  • The instructions to bidders contained the following instructions:
    • “Base Bids on strict compliance with Drawings and Specifications and include all costs for the project.”
    • “Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any Bid may be rejected for being incomplete including completion of the Appendices, …, having alternative or separate prices omitted …, failure to use specified materials or systems or installers or installation methods, … or any other non-conforming, non-responsive and conditional Bids.”

  • 4 days before bid close two new addenda were issued:
    • The first addendum asked to: “Provide alternate pricing for Metal fence that is shown and detailed on the drawings listed above. … List original fence design price in the Itemized Prices section and list the alternative in the Alternative Prices section”
    • Mechanical Addendum #1 changed the sanitary risers schematic drawing. In that changed drawing, a note provided:
      • BASE BID: INCLUDE UTILITY ROOM FLOOR DRAINS
      • ALTERNATE BID: DELETE UTILITY ROOM FLOOR DRAINS

  • The problem with the issued addenda is that they did not include changes in the Alternative Prices section of the bid form for the bidders to enter the information required by the addenda for either fence or drains.

  • non compliant bidsContractor 1 having not received any bids for  the requested alternates wrote “TBA” for prices.

  • Contractor 2 did not provide alternate prices either and eventually it was awarded the contract.

  • Contractor 1 sued the Owner for awarding to a non-compliant bidder.  The Court agreed that the fact that the bid form was not amended to allow for the requested alternate prices did not change the requirement of the bidder to respond to the request and the Owner did award to a non-compliant bidder.  However, since Contractor 1’s bid was also non-compliant for failing to include the requested alternate prices there was no legal remedy.


In this illustration the Owner created the setting for the bidders to fail by not including an area in the bid from to provide their alternate prices.  This caused a conflict with the bid form and the instructions and both bidders failed to comply with the requirements of the instructions.

Today’s solution:

Using the PlanSource Online Bidding module, the Owner is able to enforce the Alternative Price requirement and bidders would not be able to submit their bids until they responded as directed.  This eliminates the ability to submit a non-compliant bid and avoids the costly and time consuming court action that resulted in this example.
 

Click here to learn more about the PlanSource online bidding module.

Our thanks to Mike Demers, Partner with the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada law firm of Jenkins Marzban Logan for providing the synopsis of this court decision. Mike’s practice at JML is focused on construction related matters. This includes advising clients on tendering, construction contract drafting, dealing with on-going project disputes, builder’s liens and, finally, the resolution of claims through trial, mediation or arbitration proceedings. Mike also provides advice on non-union employment matters for both employers and employees and general corporate and commercial litigation services.

Topics: Construction documents, Risk management, Construction bidding, Court cases

Construction Technology Predictions vs Survey 2012

Posted by Dave Robertson on Mar 15, 2012 9:48:00 AM

As discussed in our previous post, the predictions around the technology trends for 2012 place emphasis on emerging technology trends such as:

  • Cloud computing
  • Advancement of seamless, cross-platform mobile application
  • More intuitive, integrated, and self teaching software

Although the predictions have been established, we need to take a look at what the construction companies are actually doing this year. A recent survey conducted by The Sage Group gauges the opinions of its construction and real estate customers on questions relating to Construction Industry Technology Trends. Some of the key findings include:

  • technology efficiencyNearly 60% of the respondent believes that increasing efficiency via technology is the most important action to carry out.
  • However, 45% of the surveyed companies do not understand cloud computing.
  • 34% of the respondents indicated that they would increase the use of smartphones/PDAs mobile technology in 2012.

One of the conclusions I draw from this information is that the industry has accepted that it is important to identify technology that can improve the efficiency of their business however they are uncertain what solutions best fit their needs. Rather than trying to understand the supporting technologies and deferring important decisions it may well be better to simply identify the solutions that make sense from an application perspective, satisfy yourself that they are secure and then get on with reaping the benefits of the proven systems that are already available today.

Topics: Construction industry, Cloud computing

Construction Bidding Court Case #4 – Bid Package

Posted by Dave Robertson on Feb 21, 2012 9:45:00 AM

Learn how PlanSource could help construction professionals to significantly reduce the risk of costly delays or claims arising from errors or omission from real court cases.

Submitting a bid requires that bidders ensure even the most minute detail is addressed or their bid could be deemed non-compliant and all of the cost and effort put into the creation of a competitive bid is lost – even if you are the low bidder.  Bid submissions can get complicated and may require the completion and submission of many forms with the bid.  Even if an owner specifies that you sign the bid form in pink ink, failure to do so can result in your bid being disqualified as non-compliant.

The example below involves the requirement to attach a document to the bid.  In this case, the bidder argued they complied with the bid requirements and the owner took the position that while the bidder did submit the required attachment, it was not complete and therefore the bid was non-compliant:

  • The Instructions to Bidders required submission of complete package in sealed envelope.

  • Included in the package was a 10 page breakdown of unit prices, with the last page showing rolled up stipulated sum, including taxes

  • case4 construction bid packageThe Contractor prepared their bid, confirmed all 10 pages of the breakdown unit prices was in the package, placed the contents in an envelope, sealed the envelope, and delivered the bid on time

  • At the bid opening, the Owner opened the envelopes, announced and recorded all bidders’ prices, and then took all the bids to their office to review for completeness, etc.

  • Upon review the Owner says that the Contractor’s unit price breakdown only had only 9 pages and declared the bid non-compliant.

  • The Contractor sued claiming they had submitted all 10 pages of the unit price breakdown.

Although the bid that was submitted on time and with the required attachment, it was deemed ineligible simply because of a missing page. It is further unfortunate that both the owner and the bidder spent considerable time, effort and money in court on an issue that can be effectively eliminated.

Today’s solution:

All bids submitted through the PlanSource Online Bidding module are copied to a 3rd party verifier.  The copy is a mirror image of what was submitted by the bidder.  So in the event of a dispute as described above, the owner can retrieve the copy bid from the 3rd party verifier to determine exactly how many pages were submitted by the bidder.  This process eliminates the “he said – she said” argument between the owner and the bidder and quickly verifies what was contained in the bid.  No dispute – no costly law suit.
 

Click here to learn more about the PlanSource online bidding module.

Our thanks to Mike Demers, Partner with the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada law firm of Jenkins Marzban Logan for providing the synopsis of this court decision. Mike’s practice at JML is focused on construction related matters. This includes advising clients on tendering, construction contract drafting, dealing with on-going project disputes, builder’s liens and, finally, the resolution of claims through trial, mediation or arbitration proceedings. Mike also provides advice on non-union employment matters for both employers and employees and general corporate and commercial litigation services.

Topics: Risk management, Construction bidding, Court cases

Construction Bidding Court Case #3 – Forms

Posted by Dave Robertson on Jan 31, 2012 9:15:00 AM

Learn how PlanSource could help construction professionals to significantly reduce the risk of costly delays or claims arising from errors or omission from real court cases.

An essential requirement to ensure you are conducting a fair and equitable bidding process is making certain that all bidders receive the same information and documentation in an equal and timely manner. Doing so will ensure a successful bid process and minimize costly risks that could result in the loss of the low bidder to clerical error and/or a coinciding court claim by one of the bidders.  While it sounds basic and obvious, the nature of a paper-based bidding process is such that control over what documentation is in the public domain is out of the bid authority’s hands and an unintentional error by one of the bidders could cost the owner a low bid’s disqualification, as the following Court decision illustrates:

The Bid Documents:

  • The Owner issues Addendum 1 which has a bid form with non-negotiable prices for pre-selected materials and a $400,000 contingency – Pre-Printed on the form.

  • Subsequently Addendum 2 is issued:
  1. The Owner was able to negotiate lower prices for pre-selected materials and that was reflected on an amended bid form – containing pre-printed contingency allowances.
  2. Instructions to bidders made use of the addendum 2 bid form mandatory.

The Bid Submission:

As a result of the issuance of Addendum 2, bidders had 2 paper bid forms in their possession.

  • Contractor 1 used the Addendum 1 bid form for its submission and Contractor 2 used the Addendum 2 bid form.  If Contractor 1 had used the Addendum 2 bid form it would be low.

    construction bidding case bid forms

  • The Owner sought declaration that Contractor 1’s bid  was “materially compliant”
    • It was obvious what Contractor 1’s new price would be given the pre-printed form.
  • The price of the pre-selected material was not one over which the bidders had any control.  This fixed price was a mandatory component of the total bid price.

 

The Court Ruled:

  • In order to accept Contractor 1’s bid with the lower total bid price, the Owner would have to amend Contractor 1’s bid and then accept the new bid.
  • The terms of the instructions to bidders permitted the Owner to ignore any arithmetic error or simple omission.  However, the Court ruled there was no arithmetical error in Contractor 1’s bid.  Therefore there was nothing for the Owner to waive or ignore.
  • The Owner is attempting to create a new tender from one that which Contractor 1 intentionally submitted as their bid price.

The Court therefore concluded that Contractor 1’s use of the wrong bid form was materially non-compliant.

 

The result is that the “otherwise” low bidder lost an opportunity because it used the wrong bid form and, the Owner ends up paying more for the work because it had multiple bid forms in the open marketplace.  It is further unfortunate that both the owner and the bidder spent considerable time, effort and money in court on an issue that can be effectively eliminated.

Today’s solution:

PlanSource’s Online Bidding module ensures there is only one bid form available to bidders at any given time.  Whenever a change is made to the bid form, or any part thereof, the bid calling authority deletes any previous version of the bid from the system ensuring that all bidders complete the same bid form and all bids are submitted compliant and on an equal basis.


construction bidding case bid forms auto version 

Click here to learn more about the PlanSource online bidding module.

Our thanks to Mike Demers, Partner with the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada law firm of Jenkins Marzban Logan for providing the synopsis of this court decision. Mike’s practice at JML is focused on construction related matters. This includes advising clients on tendering, construction contract drafting, dealing with on-going project disputes, builder’s liens and, finally, the resolution of claims through trial, mediation or arbitration proceedings. Mike also provides advice on non-union employment matters for both employers and employees and general corporate and commercial litigation services.

Topics: Online bidding, Construction bidding, Court cases

Construction Bidding Court Case #2 – Mandatory Site Visits

Posted by Dave Robertson on Jan 24, 2012 9:30:00 AM

Learn how PlanSource could help construction professionals to significantly reduce the risk of costly delays or claims arising from errors or omission from real court cases.

In some instances an owner will determine that bidders must attend the site in order to familiarize themselves with the unique site conditions so they can prepare a bid that will include any distinctive characteristics.  If so, instruction to bidders will include a “mandatory” site visit so bidders can review site conditions and ask any questions they may have regarding the bid requirements.  Whether or not contractors consider these visits to be material to the acceptance of their bid, failure to comply may lead to rejection of their bid.  The following case study illustrates the importance of attending mandatory site visits.

Instructions to bidders required:

“A mandatory site tour for general contractors will be held on [date] at 8:00 a.m. beginning at [Building 1] and immediately followed by [Building 2].  Agents must register their presence with the owner of the site tour stating the name of the contractor they represent. Failure to attend and register will lead to the non-acceptance of the tender by the owner.”

The following sequence of events transpired:

  • Contractor attends at 8:15 but group already gone to Building 2.  Contractor Shows up at B2, goes on tour, and declines offer to have tour go back to B1.  Goes back on his own next day, then submits bid on time and otherwise compliant.
  • Owner returned bid, unopened, because of failure to attend first site visit with everyone.  Contractor sues.

The Contractor presented the following arguments to the Court:

  1. Because it attended the site tour and signed its name and then returned to visit the first site, albeit the next day, it complied with the mandatory site visit requirement.
  2. The mandatory site visit clause was ambiguous because it did not say that the potential bidder had to attend the entirety of the site visit

 

The Court ruled the bid was non-compliant and therefore incapable of acceptance in law because:

  1. The mandatory site visit clause NOT ambiguous.  It was “obvious” that attend means attend both locations starting at 8:00 and “failure to so attend” set out clear consequences.
  2. Failure to attend first site visit at all was a material, rather than technical breach.  Failure to attend is also different than showing up 5 minutes late but still participating in the tour of both locations
 

So, even though the contractor submitted its bid price on time and made the effort to complete the other requirements at a later time, the bid submission was deemed non-compliant and was therefore rejected.  A more unfortunate result is that both the owner and the bidder spent considerable time, effort and money on an issue that can be effectively eliminated.

Today’s solution:

The PlanSource Bid Module allows the bidding authority to require contractors to “pre-registrator” their intention to bid.  This places the contractors name on a “bidders list” in the bid module.  After conducting the mandatory site visit and taking attendance, the bid authority can then check those conformed bidders who did not attend the visit and bar them from submitting a bid eliminating the requirement to return an unopened bid and creating the environment for the contractor to litigate.

construction case mandatory site visit 

Click here to learn more about the PlanSource online bidding module.

Our thanks to Mike Demers, Partner with the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada law firm of Jenkins Marzban Logan for providing the synopsis of this court decision. Mike’s practice at JML is focused on construction related matters. This includes advising clients on tendering, construction contract drafting, dealing with on-going project disputes, builder’s liens and, finally, the resolution of claims through trial, mediation or arbitration proceedings. Mike also provides advice on non-union employment matters for both employers and employees and general corporate and commercial litigation services. 

Topics: Online bidding, Construction bidding, Court cases

Construction Bidding Court Case #1 – Faxed Bid Amendments

Posted by Dave Robertson on Jan 9, 2012 9:00:00 AM

Learn how PlanSource could help construction professionals to significantly reduce the risk of costly delays or claims arising from errors or omission from real court cases.

As technology has evolved, owners have amended the bid submission process to accommodate bidders to ensure they (owners) receive the most competitive pricing within the specified time period. A prime example of such an accommodation is the advent of the fax machine and the subsequent adaptation of accepting amendments to a bidder’s submission by fax. In this situation the bidder would submit a completed bid form in a sealed envelope as per the instructions to bidders well in advance of the specified closing time. This would ensure the bid is submitted on time. The bidder then continues to work on their bid and make last minute adjustments to their price. Once they reach their final price, the bidder adjusts the bid previously submitted by sending an amendment by fax to a number designated in the instructions to bidders.

However, this process is not without its tribulations as the following Court decision illustrates:

The [Owner] sent out Invitations to Bid containing the following language with respect to faxed amendments:

  • "Bids must be received before 2:00 p.m., local time, Monday, December 12, 2011 at the reception office of [Owner].  Bids received after the closing time will be returned unopened."

  • "Revisions will be accepted by signed letter either delivered to the address stated in the Invitation to Bid or faxed to the fax number given in the Invitation to Bid."

  • "For faxed revisions, the clock used for the official bid closing time shall govern. Where a faxed amendment is received at the fax number designated in the Invitation to Bid and the time of receipt is deemed valid, this faxed amendment will be accepted even if said fax is not at the location where the bids are opened."

  • bid package fax number The bid form in the Bid Package contained a standard Faxed Bid Amendment Form as Appendix F. That Faxed Bid Amendment Form contained a pre-printed fax number (250-555-1234). That was the fax number at the location where all bids which were not faxed were required to be delivered.

  • The Bid Package included a Contact List, where the Owner contact was listed as Mr. Greg Z. Bidders were provided with an address, a phone number, and fax number (250-555-9876). The fax number was a fax at Mr. Z’s office.

  • [Contractor] sends in hard copy bid the day before and, a few minutes before close, faxes in a revision – To the 9876 number, not 1234 number.

The Court concluded that the bid revision was not sent to the proper fax number
and therefore was invalid.


So, the unfortunate result of this owner’s effort to accommodate bidders to ensure he receives competitive bids, is that they lose the lowest bid because the bidder is confused by the instructions to amend his bid by fax. A more unfortunate result is that both the owner and the bidder spent considerable time, effort and money on an issue that can be effectively eliminated.

Today’s solution:

Fortunately, technology continues to evolve and PlanSource’s online bidding module allows bidders to amend their bids right up to closing time without worry.  The online bid form is created by the owner and made available to bidders.  Bidders complete the form and submit it through the PlanSource application.  Bidders are able to withdraw their bids at any time prior to closing.  The withdrawn bid is returned to “draft” mode, changed and re-submitted.  This bid can be withdrawn and re-submitted any number of times prior to the bid closing time.

Benefits

Amendments can be made quickly and easily right up to closing time.  Bids are ALWAYS located at the designated closing location (online in the PlanSource application).  Bidders can submit their most competitive pricing and owners will never have to reject a low bidder because of a clerical mistake by the bidder.

Click here to learn more about the PlanSource online bidding module.

Our thanks to Mike Demers, Partner with the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada law firm of Jenkins Marzban Logan for providing the synopsis of this court decision. Mike’s practice at JML is focused on construction related matters. This includes advising clients on tendering, construction contract drafting, dealing with on-going project disputes, builder’s liens and, finally, the resolution of claims through trial, mediation or arbitration proceedings. Mike also provides advice on non-union employment matters for both employers and employees and general corporate and commercial litigation services.  


Topics: Online bidding, Risk management, Court cases

Construction Technology Outlook 2012

Posted by Dave Robertson on Dec 13, 2011 6:30:00 AM

As we draw near the end of 2011, there are many predictions around the IT industry trend for 2012. The recently published "Nucleus Research Top Ten Predictions 2012" places emphasis on the rise of cloud computing (prediction #2). According to the article, cloud computing was proven to be nearly five times more productive than the traditional development in 2011. Furthermore, the article also states, “When companies do have money to spend, their two main choices are technology and people. A recent Nucleus survey found technology is winning hands down, with 50 percent of US companies planning to increase their technology spend in 2012 [Nucleus Research l106, Nucleus 2012 IT spending survey, September 2011].” Thus, many firms will look into increasing their productivity via technology adoption next year.

Another 2012 outlook by M/C Partners published in the TechJournal South titled “Top ten communications, tech, and media industry trends for 2012” also acknowledges the emerging enterprise adoption of cloud-based services (prediction #2). Consequently, this will “drive demand for network-based managed services that will provide critical monitoring and management of application and service performance across LANs, MANs, WANs and the public Internet.

IT predictions 2012

So the trend is clear. Businesses are moving towards cloud computing to take advantage of its many benefits including increased productivity, cost savings, accountability and sustainability. In today’s construction industry, online document control, online planroom, and online bidding are examples of cloud computing technologies that are increasingly adopted.

Topics: Online bidding, Electronic document management, Construction industry, Online planroom

Green Construction at the Bidding Phase

Posted by Dave Robertson on Nov 21, 2011 8:17:00 AM

A few years ago most bidders would not have pictured themselves submitting their construction bids online in a paperless environment. It represents a major change from decades of travelling to closings, faxing bid amendments, last minute decisions and all the drama that comes with it. Today, this green construction technology has finally arrived. Online bid submission has the double benefit of being a sustainable process along with the benefits of substantially improved efficiency. Supported with a complete document management system and audit trail, it ensures a complete record of who saw what documents and when. This combination greatly reduces the risk of costly bid related errors or omissions.

A great example of an early adopter of this technology is the city of Prince George in British Columbia, Canada. It leads the way in the electronic tendering of capital projects closing many of the projects that have utilized the recently introduced Owner Bid Management and Bid Submission applications within BidCentral. green construction technologyBidCentral is powered by PlanSource and is a suite of services that was designed specifically for the construction industry and is modeled after the processes that have long been accepted as industry standards. The City of Prince George procurement team and the bidders involved in the bidding process gave BidCentral very positive reviews and recognized it as the new construction procurement standard (view video).

Earlier this month, BidCentral was honoured with the presentation of the TechGREEN Award by the Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of British Columbia. The TechGREEN Award winners are recognized for their contribution to a 'green' economy and sustainable society.  >" target="_blank">Click here to read the news release >>

Topics: Environmental impact, Online bidding, Electronic document management, Construction industry