Masonry Magazine March 1966 Page. 7
Special Report:
An important statement vital to every mason contractor
ROBERT L. LEGGETT
Congressman
4th District, California
ANTI BID SHOPPING LEGISLATION
By Congressman Robert L. Leggett
Masonry is pleased to present this statement by Congressman Robert L. Leggett concerning H.R. 489- Anti Bid Shopping Legislation. This address was made by the Congressman at the 16th Annual MCAA Convention held in Washington, D.C. during February. It will be run in two parts. Make sure you read each of these articles.
PART I
Mr. Les Dietrich and gentlemen of the Mason Contractors of America. First, I'd like to welcome you to Washington on behalf of the Congress of the United States.
It is my pleasure to address you this morning on a brass ack's evaluation of the possibility of giving subcontractors some degree of protection on Federal Public Work through legislation the vehicle being my bill H.R. 489 or by administrative regulation.
A report of a Congressional committee has been made as follows:
"The bill is designed to eliminate or curb a vicious practice variously known as "bid shopping" or "bid peddling" which witnesses testified now flourishes in connection with Government contracts. The fact that the Government is no way responsible for these shady operations does not seem to justify the Congress in not passing some legislation that will at least put a stop to the practice so far as Government work is concerned."
The hearings reveal many examples substantially as follows: A, a general contractor has secured a Government contract. In making up his successful bid he utilized figures submitted by several subcontractors in each phase of the contract, such as foundation, plumbing, electrical fixtures, etc. The subcontractors competing for, say, the plumbing, were B, C, D and E, among them E supplied the lowest satisfactory figure which was used by A in obtaining the contract. A then informs B, C, D and perhaps a favored firm which has submitted no previous bid as to the amount bid by E, and offers the work to the one that will shave this figure the most. The same thing happens in connection with the foundation, electrical fixtures, etc. In their anxiety to keep their organizations at work, the cut-throat competition between the several concerns makes the cost of the work much lower to the general contractor than he figures in his bid, the difference being additional profit. It is testified that these conditions often bring about the failure of the subcontractor.
Witnesses in opposition to the legislation state that the admitted evil cannot be removed by legislation, but only through better business ethics being adopted by the contractors themselves. The fact remains, however, that the subcontractors usually go to considerable expense in working up the figures which they submit to the general contractor, especially on large projects. It seems to be only fair that when a firm has spent money and enabled the general contractor to secure a contract by reason of its low estimate that it should be given the same assurance of receiving the work as the general contractor has when he enters into competition with other general contractors for the whole job. This assurance is a matter of legislation. It