Construction Information Technology Blog

Fairness in the Procurement Process

Posted by Dave Robertson on Oct 2, 2013 9:36:00 AM

Is it important to be fair to all bidders when you are calling for bids or proposals? Of course it is. It’s not only important; it’s supported by many years of case law that all bidders must be treated fairly and equitably. Whether it is for a case of toilet paper, 10 tons of pipe, engineering services or a construction project the principles of fairness need to be part of the process. When a person or company makes the decision to spend their resources to respond to a bid or proposal call in a competitive environment they expect a fair process. Nobody wants to be used to keep someone else ‘honest’ or to have their price leaked to another bidder who is given the opportunity to beat it. The more subjective process of proposal calls can be even more challenging as there are typically many judgement calls in the evaluation process leading to a ‘best value’ decision.

court cases

A key aspect of conducting a fair bid or proposal call is the actual submission process itself. Utilizing a process that eliminates potential unintended negative consequences of process errors is demonstrably better for both the submitter and receiver. A quick review of the 5 articles in the court cases section of this blog demonstrates some of the simple process based issues that can cause both parties lost opportunities and extra costs. While these cases refer to construction related submissions the same principles apply to all procurement processes.

Topics: Risk management, Construction bidding

What makes construction procurement different?

Posted by Dave Robertson on Jun 17, 2013 8:20:00 AM

If you are looking to buy a computer, a chair, or a car you can typically see it, touch and try it before you make the decision to part with some of your hard earned money and make the purchase. That is one of the key factors making purchasing construction so different. The purchaser has a vision and a plan for a built asset and needs to find an efficient way to buy a complex custom fabricated piece of work that doesn’t exist yet.

The next significant difference when buying construction is the many varied contractual methods to work through including; stipulated or lump sum pricing, unit price contract, design build, construction management, construction management at risk, design-build-operate contracts and many other possible contractual variations. And of course, once you begin to look at contracts it is very important to understand the legal environment related to the various contract provisions. For example: Does the entity purchasing the constructed asset have a duty to treat all the bidders equally? Can the entity have a preferred constructor but get pricing from others to ‘keep the preferred constructor honest’?

traditional construciton procurementThe common requirement for bid security is another key factor distinguishing construction purchasing. The requirement for submitting bid bonds or other bid security is primarily a construction related activity. Like everything else in this complicated process it has to be done on time and be done right as large sums of money are at stake.

Now, just to add a little excitement to the process, add in the fact that in most construction projects there are a multitude of consultants, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers all bound together through a web of bid submissions and the resulting contracts. In many cases the entire pricing/bidding process occurs in a time restricted environment that adds just a bit more pressure to the entire procurement.

Today the vast majority of this activity happens in the traditional, error prone paper based submission process. However, there is change in the wind. Online technologies offer impressive new tools that bring enormous value and efficiency to this entire process. The inherent risks of errors and omissions are significantly reduced or in many cases eliminated. It is only a matter of time until this ‘new way’ of managing the bid submission process becomes the standard. 

construction procurement2

Topics: Construction documents, Risk management, Construction bidding, Construction industry

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

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 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

Are you Wasting Your Bidding Efforts?

Posted by Dave Robertson on May 6, 2011 10:29:00 AM

We recently came across the results of an interesting survey conducted by Bland and Associates of Omaha Nebraska. In their 2010 Construction Survey they identified a few key trends and issues facing the construction industry in the USA.

Construction Bidding EstimatingOne of the aspects focused on is the level of accuracy of construction estimates. “According to national reports, a key challenge for construction companies today is hiring enough skilled workers who can accurately estimate job costs. This is especially important as construction projects become more complex and for jobs with guaranteed maximum price contracts. The majority of 2010 survey respondents (50%) reported their estimates are within 1 – 2% of actual job costs. More than 37% of respondents, however, said they overestimate projects by 3 – 5% on average, a jump from just 19% in 2009.

In such a highly competitive industry it is hard to imagine how anyone could find estimates that are only within 3 – 5% acceptable. In a study we did in late 2009 titled Bidding Patterns of Successful Low Bidders we showed that over a third (35.7%) of all hard bid projects are won by 5% or less. It seems incredulous that so many sophisticated companies would waste their time and hard earned money with a self inflicted situation that takes them out of the running a third of the time.

The survey analysis notes that “According to national reports, contractors who don’t invest in technology or use it effectively are at a serious disadvantage to the competition. This is primarily because technology enables construction companies to improve project implementation and reduce costs and mistakes, all of which are especially critical in an industry that relies so heavily on correct scheduling, coordination and technical specifications.

It seems fair to conclude from this that if there are cost effective technology solutions available that can improve the bidding process for contractors that it would be a good idea for them to investigate the potential to increase their odds of submitting a competitive bid from a lowly 64.3%.

Topics: Estimators software, Construction bidding, Construction industry

The ten elements of a ‘complete’ bidding system

Posted by Dave Robertson on Apr 28, 2011 8:48:00 AM

There is a growing trend towards moving business practices online to gain efficiencies. One of the activities in the construction industry that is moving that way is the process of submitting a bid. In other posts I have referenced the fact that it is important to make sure that moving your process online doesn’t leave gaps that can increase the risk of errors or omissions. To do that a complete bidding system that integrates all the related elements of the process is essential. What then, are the elements of a complete system?

The minimum elements that must be present to constitute a complete bidding system include:

10 element of construction bidding system1.       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. Public agencies are often mandated to advertise publicly.

2.       Invitation to bid – For when there are bidders who are to be proactively advised of the opportunity. In addition to the ability to simply ‘send a message’ the system must help organize and manage the list of potential bidders.

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. If 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 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 security 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 include the ability to; apply for and receive a bid bond, complete sections of the bid as the information is available and ready to enter, allow others in their 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. A tabulated set of bid responses is the most efficient means to do so and is an essential element of the complete bidding process.

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. Knowing exactly who saw what and when it happened helps avoid many of the problems that arise following submission of the bids.

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.

Topics: Online bidding, Construction bidding, Audit trail

The Impact of the Internet on Bidding Practices in the Construction Industry

Posted by Dave Robertson on Apr 21, 2011 9:34:00 AM

I think we have moved beyond the conversations about whether the Internet is going to change some of the long standing practices in the construction industry. It wasn’t that long ago that Invitations to Bid had to be faxed, rolls of drawings had to be couriered out, addenda had to be faxed and ultimately a detailed bid submission including bid bonds and attachments had to be placed in an envelope, sealed and driven across town to be submitted before time ran out. All of that can now be done faster, easier and with less risk of errors over the internet. This is a prime example of the wave of change sweeping the industry.

It is a fair question to wonder how quickly this is all happening. A recent report published by the Economist Intelligence Unit called “Digital Economy Rankings – Beyond E-readiness” takes a close look at that question. The study takes a much broader view of the world than my narrow interest in the construction industry but is none the less interesting. One of the conclusions of the report is that “ ... the digital economy rankings demonstrate that there are many ways to harness the power of the Internet to improve economic prospects and the lives of people.” Referring back to the scenario described above it is clear that this is absolutely true for the construction sector. New technologies are revolutionizing long standing practices.


digital world

One of the more fascinating statements made is that “Innovative digital practices and applications are arguably being conceived and put in practice in the emerging world faster than in the developed world. Simply put, there are no alternatives but to become “more digital” with whatever assets are available.” To me, this reinforces what we see in practice. People and companies don’t want to change their practices when the status quo is an option. If there is no option they are more likely to adopt the innovation. Just think how much further ahead we could be if we had the same attitude towards new technology.

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