ShareThis Page

Critics of bid law revision fear best deals could be missed

Tom Fontaine
| Saturday, Oct. 1, 2011

Supporters of legislation that would allow government agencies to stop advertising and seeking bids for small-scale projects say it would cut costs and streamline government.

Detractors argue it would result in less transparency and fewer good deals.

"I don't know why you wouldn't want to advertise everything so you can try to get the best deal possible. It helps keep prices down when you have many people bidding for something," said Angela Zaydon, director of legal and public policy for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

"I also think it could cut out many small businesses that might depend on small projects to survive," Zaydon said.

The legislation would allow Pennsylvania agencies to forego placing advertisements and seeking competitive bids for projects and purchases under $18,500. They would be required to seek at least three phone or written quotes for projects ranging from $10,000 to $18,499. The amounts would change annually based on the consumer price index.

Currently, the law requires ads and bidding for projects of $10,000 or more, and phone or written bids for projects of at least $4,000.

The Senate approved the changes on Tuesday. The House is expected to do so within weeks, said legislators and their aides.

The newspaper association fought a version of the legislation that passed the House with a bid limit of $25,000. Zaydon said the lobbying group negotiated with legislators to lower the specified limit and won't fight the amounts the Senate recommended.

The bid limit hasn't changed since 1978. Today, the $10,000 is worth about $34,746, according to .

"When the bidding requirements were put in place years ago, it reflected the economy at the time," said Elam Herr, assistant executive director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors. "What you could buy at the time with that amount of money, you can't buy today."

Elam disputed that changing the law would lessen government openness, noting that governmental bodies still would approve spending at public meetings.

"Even for people who are the most cynical of government, you have to give some leeway that the officials will do what the law says they are supposed to do. There are enough laws there that if someone crosses the line, people will find out, and there are ramifications," Herr said.

Neither Herr nor legislators the Tribune-Review contacted could project how much money the legislation might save government agencies.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.