3.2.4. Tension Resolution

The two poles at play embody an opposition between a purely objective vision of equal treatment of tenderers through price-driven competition, and the need to appreciate parties' behaviour and the inherent qualities necessary to achieve optimal collaboration, quality and value in a BIM context. While some aspects may be objectively quantifiable and qualifiable such as price, experience of tenderers or the number of similar projects, the criteria used to help define quality mostly represent an attempt to objectively assess a subjective matter, a daunting task since quality is easier assessed ex post rather than defined ex ante (Jobidon et al. 2018). These formal criteria give little to no help to public bodies wishing to select a collaborative partner for the realization of a project. The very essence of the BIM collaborative process is the human nature and the participants' interactive qualities, since BIM is considered 10% technology and 90% sociology (Paranandi 2015). The ability to communicate clearly, open-mindedness, walking the extra mile, cooperative behaviour, trustworthiness and creativity are essential qualities, although complex to assess and evaluate.

Once again, a possible solution is the use of a rank-and-run or BAFO process. The RFQ and RFP processes should help public bodies select an appropriate tenderer on an objective quality basis. A more subjective evaluation of tenderers, assessed through predetermined rules in contractual documents, could include interviews with prospective team members and real time sample problems relating to BIM, such as interference detection workshops, for tenderers to demonstrate their ability to work collaboratively (IPDA 2018).

Following this step, public bodies and the top-ranked tenderer could enter a second step during which team alignment and contract negotiation workshops are held to ensure cohesion and the implementation of collaborative practices (IPDA 2018). This stage would also serve to develop a binding target cost. If for some reason previously stated in the RFQ and RFP documents, whether for failing to agree on commercial terms or the tenderer's lack of collaboration, this process was to fail with the top-ranked tenderer, public bodies could go to the next-best ranked tenderer and start all over again. This type of process would help strike balance between the evaluation of objective qualities and the more ineffable ones necessary to achieve fully collaborative BIM, while also ensuring fairness.

Delivery methods other than integrated ones can benefit from BIM. Therefore, it is important to address Quebec's mixed contracts price–quality formula. An evaluation of the price–quality formula using the k coefficient has recently been conducted in Quebec. It was found that in more than 74% of the cases studied, the variation of the k coefficient makes no difference in the choice of the tenderer (AAPPQ 2019). The regulatory requirements regarding the k coefficient are too low for quality to really have an impact. The study suggests that the federal formula, which gives a maximum of 90% of the score to quality and 10% to price, makes quality the paramount adjudication criterion (AAPPQ 2019). When this formula is used, the firm obtaining the best quality rating is favored in all cases and configurations of procurement compared to the firm offering the lowest price. Quebec should therefore consider incorporating the federal formula, or a version thereof, to ensure that tenderers are selected based on the quality of their propositions and not only, or mostly, their price.
