Why must bidders be more politically correct than angels?

An overhaul of Miami-Dade’s buying of goods and services could save taxpayers untold millions. In larger contracts it could save tens of millions apiece.

While saving, moreover, the quality of purchases would actually rise and the county would level the playing field, creating more opportunities for businesses to sell to government.

The need for overhaul is clear.

The Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust, in reviewing a Sept. 13 commission vote to extend for five more years a $200 million contact for para-transportation without allowing other bids, balked and blew the whistle.

“I’m in favor of a competitive process,” said board member Joe Curbelo. “I don’t think it would take five years to contract even a service so unique,” said Peggy Bell. “Companies do better when there is competition.”

Spot on. Barriers to competition raise prices and lower quality. In fact, an Uber official hinted at bidding on the contract – but no bids were allowed.

No-bid county contracts are too common. The claim always is that nobody else has this unique service or that unique good. But if you don’t allow bids you will never know. 

Entrepreneurs are good at filling seemingly unique niches with parallel or more innovative products or services, but only if we give them a chance. How could we possibly know whether they are interested if we don’t ask?

One way the county “knows” that nobody can bid is that providers must register, fill out mountains of paperwork and prove they hire the right kinds of people, don’t deal with the wrong nations, are environmentally mindful and follow every socially responsive and sensitive practice that commissioners and the county dream up – in other words, that they are totally politically correct according to current norms, despite those norms being irrelevant to the contract.

Mandates reduce bidders. And companies that don’t register as vendors aren’t visible when the county looks for competitors in what otherwise will be no-bid contracts.

With the best of motivation in trying to turn the socially disadvantaged into the economically advantaged, the mayor and commissioners thus reduce vendors. The more bidders, the lower prices and the higher the quality.

Draft rules that Mayor Daniella Levine Cava circulated in April added requirements to make vendors list their sustainable business practices and show how they use durable products, reusable products and those “that contain the maximum level of post-consumer waste, post-industrial and-or recyclable content, without significantly affecting the intended use of the goods or services required.” They also must detail their environmental policies, programs and certifications. That’s every vendor, folks.

Would-be county vendors must also meet a bevy of labor standards and offer “detailed documentation on employee development and evaluation processes” and certify equal access to small, diverse and disadvantaged suppliers and show that they are increasing opportunities to all of these supplier groups.

Then come a multi-tiered list of advantages offered to suppliers that are more local than others. Top preference goes to firms headquartered here, second to firms with offices here, then to firms in neighboring counties, then to anyone that comes from anywhere else.

All this social engineering to meet miscellaneous aims that officials see as societally beneficial comes with the best of motivations but limits bidders by piling on requirements and preferences, building in higher prices. While the aims seem right, in contracts they harm more than help the public, tilting what should be a level playing field to favor certain groups and practices. 

In the bad old days of bigotry, government buying was tilted to favor the “right” political and ethnic groups and people who act “just like we want them to.” We now see that was unfair, wrong, prejudicial and costly. So we have fixed it by favoring other “right” political and ethnic groups and other people who act “just like we want them to.” 

So, who today is most worthy of being on the receiving end of contracts by tilting the playing field in their favor? Women? Hispanics? Blacks? Haitians? Small business? Local business? New business? Film business? Big business? Green business? Conservatives? Liberals? Patriots? Relatives? First responders? Ex-commissioners? Ex-convicts? Newcomers? Long-time businesses? All have proponents for special consideration, and a lot of it makes its way into contract rules.

But remember: what today is as politically correct as segregation once was might be out of step tomorrow.

How about this solution: help every one of these groups, and all others, by favoring all equally – just level the playing field for all. Help the disadvantaged and the advantaged equally, in the process lowering costs for the taxpayer.

Just think of the red tape saved by not forcing businesses to prove that they are politically correct every day and just letting them do their jobs.

And think how much time we’d save those deciding on a contract if they didn’t have to wade through pages of boilerplate “proof” that a bidder is more socially responsible than an angel.

Of course, the biggest single opportunity to raise quality and add opportunity while saving money would arise if the commission no longer voted on contracts at all but simply appropriated funds and let purchasing professionals do their jobs unimpeded. 

That’s how federal and state governments do it. Neither Congress nor the Legislature awards contracts. They decide how much money is available and let professionals do the buying.

But campaign contributions are linked to commission votes. Votes on contracts indirectly aid fundraising. A direct link is bribery, but an indirect link is legal and likely to last.

It would be a huge step forward in saving money and improving quality, however, if the county could just level the bidding playing field and consider the price and quality of goods and services by divorcing social engineering aims from all contracts.