When the system of prequalification for contractors on historic preservation
projects works it is beautiful. When it does not it is another question.

I have had experience where we were the only bidder to submit historic
preservation prequalification on public bids (open to all bidders) and the
other bidders, who never provided any form of qualification, were awarded the
project. In a very strict sense the non-submission of prequalification forms
(let alone if the contractors are qualified or not) should be construed as
non-responsive with the result that their bids are excluded from
consideration, with the same effect if they did not provide a bid bond or a
non-collusion form. I think the process of pre-qualification becomes a problem
if the lawyers, accountants, and politicians higher up in the power structure
have not bought into the idea. Bidding on these projects involves a
considerable cost. I want there to be prequalification from the perspective of
leveling the field so that we are actually competing against our peers. So
often the judgement to award a project, based on low bid, takes no notice of
the ability of the contractor to respect the unique nature of the structure.
As a result, there are a lot of really fine historic properties owned by the
public that I will not even consider making a bid on, and there are a lot of
contractors doing irreversible damage to *our* historic properties.

][<en