Accountability is a two way street

Much of what gets discussed under the topic of accountability has to do with procedures and safeguards intended to assure we get what's expected from government buying agencies. But the story of this post has to do with getting what's expected from the contractor. How can we expect to get what's coming from the contractor?

The most effective means of assuring performance is to require that the contract provide a performance bond. Sure, the cost of that, as with most costs, gets factored into the price of the job, but the owner (the government here, and us, the taxpayers) nevertheless benefits from the cost when there is a penal sum available to absorb some of the damages the owner suffers when the contractor defaults.

With that in mind, consider what's happening in the US State of Virginia:

Rolling The Dice With Taxpayer’s Money

Virginia State legislators recently passed a new law that boosts the minimum contract amount required for bid, performance, or payment bonds from $100,000 to $1 million. This means jobs that fall under $1 million are not required to obtain a surety bond to guarantee their work; it's risky business for both contractors and taxpayer's.

When it comes to trying to rationalize the new enactment, it does give previously unqualified contractor's more opportunities to work on bigger jobs that formerly required a surety bond. But whose interest does that serve? Just because some contractors may not have been able to qualify for Performance Surety bonds bond doesn't mean it's a clever idea to raise the minimum contract amount so they have more chances to work on larger projects. I will agree that surety underwriting is rather conservative these days, but that only lends to an environment of financially sound contractors getting good public work.

The HB 1951 Public Procurement Act that changes the surety bond requirements threatens taxpayer's dollars and future construction projects.