The Cheapest Quote Is Not Always the Best

£5,000.

£6,500.

£8,000.

The lowest number can appear to make the decision for us.

Sometimes it should.

But not always.

There is an old saying: buy cheap, buy twice.

Like most sayings, it is not universally true. The cheapest contractor may be perfectly capable of

carrying out the work and may represent excellent value. The difficulty comes when price

becomes the only measure.

In block management, contractor procurement is rarely just about finding somebody who can

technically complete a job. It is about finding the right contractor, for the right work, at a reasonable

cost, with the competence and professionalism to see it through properly.

Are We Actually Comparing the Same Thing?

Three quotations do not necessarily mean three contractors have priced the same job.

One contractor may have included access equipment, preparation, disposal, making good and a

warranty. Another may have excluded half of those things.

There is a considerable difference between “window cleaning - £50” and a quotation that identifies

the property, explains the areas included, confirms the frequency, deals with access and sets out

exactly what the contractor proposes to do. As the value and complexity of the work increases,

that clarity becomes increasingly important.

This matters particularly during Section 20 consultation, where the lowest tender will

understandably attract attention. Leaseholders are entitled to expect that their money is being

spent carefully - but the consultation process should not simply become a race to the lowest

figure.

If the lowest-priced contractor has properly understood the specification and is suitably competent,

there may be every reason to appoint them. If another contractor offers better value overall, there

should be a clear and defensible reason for choosing them.

Price is easy to compare. Value takes more work.

Horses for Courses

There is also such a thing as the right size contractor for the job.

A business accustomed to large commercial projects may not be the obvious choice when one

communal light has failed. Equally, somebody who is excellent at small reactive repairs may not

be the right company to undertake a complete roof replacement.

Even within individual trades there are different specialisms. One roofing contractor may be skilled

at tracing leaks and carrying out localised repairs. Another may primarily undertake complete roof

renewals and have little interest in attending for a minor defect. Neither is necessarily better than

the other - they are simply suited to different work.

Contractor selection is therefore partly about understanding the problem in front of you and finding

the person or company best placed to solve it.

A telephone conversation before instructing can save a great deal of wasted time.

“Is this the sort of work you undertake? Is this too small for you? Do you repair these systems, or

only replace them?”

There is no shame in asking those questions. In many ways, that is part of the job.

Knowing Enough, Not Knowing Everything

Property managers are expected to have an understanding of an extraordinary range of subjects -

roofs, electrical installations, fire safety, lifts, drainage, entry systems, heating, insurance,

decorations, cleaning, landscaping and plenty more besides.

But understanding a problem is not the same thing as being qualified to repair it.

If an EICR identifies C2 observations, a property manager may not know the technical detail

behind the classification, but they will know that something has been flagged which needs to be

looked at. They would not reasonably be expected to know precisely what an electrician needs to

do inside the consumer unit to rectify it.

That is why there is a significant degree of trust involved in the relationship between managing

agents, clients and contractors. We need contractors who will tell us what is required, explain it

clearly enough to be passed on to the client and - critically - tell us when something is outside their

own competence.

Sometimes a relatively simple job turns out to be considerably more complicated once

investigation begins. A good contractor should be comfortable saying “this is bigger than we

initially thought” or even “this is not something we should be doing.” Trying to engineer a fix to a

problem that requires a different specialist can ultimately leave everybody worse off.

Knowing your limits is part of competence too.

Good Work Starts With a Good Instruction

That responsibility works both ways.

The managing agent also needs to provide the contractor with useful information. A vague works

order often produces a vague outcome.

There is little point sending somebody to a large development with an instruction saying simply:

“Door not closing.”

Which door? Where is it? Is it the pedestrian gate, the main entrance or a rear fire door? Is it

failing to latch, rubbing against the frame or not opening at all?

The property manager may not know the technical cause, but we can usually give the contractor

enough information to find the problem. Photographs help. So do access instructions, parking

arrangements, gate codes and the name of somebody on site who can point them in the right

direction.

If John the contractor is attending in a white van between 10am and midday, there is value in

telling residents that too. It helps with access, helps with security and prevents an operative

spending half an hour walking around the development trying to work out what they have been

sent to repair.

Time costs money. Good information can save both.

Urgency Should Be Assessed, Not Assumed

There are situations where procurement becomes secondary.

If water is pouring through a ceiling at two o’clock in the morning, the priority is to stop the water.

There may not be time to obtain three quotations. Sometimes the emergency contractor who can

attend is the contractor you need - and emergency attendance usually comes at a price.

But not every defect needs somebody on site immediately.

If one light out of six has failed and the area remains adequately illuminated, is there a genuine

need for an out-of-hours call-out? Or can the issue be acknowledged, residents advised to take

care and attendance arranged during normal working hours?

The answer will depend on the circumstances. If the failure creates a genuine safety risk, that

changes things.

There can also be value in looking at the building as a whole. If a contractor is already attending

next week to repair a communal door and another small maintenance issue arises that they can

also deal with, it may make sense to combine both into a single attendance - provided the

additional issue can safely wait. Two repairs on one visit can be considerably more economical

than two separate call-outs.

Good property management is sometimes about getting somebody there immediately. Sometimes

it is about having the confidence to say: “We know about it. We have arranged for it to be dealt

with on Tuesday, and we will keep you updated.”

That can be a far better use of service charge money than paying an unnecessary emergency

premium.

Residents Can Be Part of the Solution

Leaseholders and residents themselves can be genuinely useful in contractor procurement.

Someone may be working from home and willing to provide access. They may know exactly where

a recurring problem is. They may have dealt with a particular contractor previously. They may

even recommend somebody who has done good work at the building before.

There is no reason to disregard a contractor simply because their name came from a leaseholder

or director. The normal checks still apply - insurance, qualifications where appropriate,

competence, experience, health and safety requirements. A recommendation cannot simply be

“Bob down the road is handy with a screwdriver.” But residents often have useful knowledge.

Their reaction after a contractor has attended can also tell us something.

When a resident specifically asks whether the same operative can return next time, that is usually

a fairly clear indication that the contractor did more than simply complete the technical repair.

Perhaps they were polite. Perhaps they explained what had gone wrong. Perhaps they took the

time to reassure somebody who was worried.

That matters - because contractors working in residential property are not simply working on

buildings.

They are working around people’s homes.

Reliability Over Time

One of the challenges with contractor relationships is that the real measure often appears over

time.

A new contractor may initially be exceptionally responsive - quotations arrive quickly, calls are

answered, jobs attended immediately. The real test is whether that standard remains six or twelve

months later.

Reliability is not necessarily about always saying yes. There is something reassuring about a

contractor who is honest enough to say: “We cannot get there today. We can attend Wednesday at

10am” - and then arrives on Wednesday at 10am. That certainty has value.

Even good contractors occasionally get things wrong. A repair may fail. A fault may return. The

original diagnosis may prove incorrect. That does not automatically make somebody a bad

contractor. The real measure is often what happens afterwards - whether they answer the call,

come back, investigate and take responsibility where appropriate, or disappear once the invoice

has been paid.

That aftercare counts. It is one of the reasons managing agents develop trusted contractor

relationships over time. Those relationships should never prevent prices being tested or

contractors being challenged. But knowing how somebody behaves when a job does not go

perfectly can sometimes tell you considerably more than knowing how they behaved when

everything did.

Best Value, Not Biggest Spend

None of this is an argument for always choosing the most expensive contractor. Nor is it an

argument against the cheapest.

It is about selecting proportionately.

The right contractor may be the smallest firm asked to quote. They may be the largest. They may

be the cheapest. They may not. What matters is whether they have understood the work, are

competent to undertake it, communicate properly and offer reasonable value to the people

ultimately paying the bill.

Because service charge money is not an endless pot attached to a building. It comes from

individual leaseholders. Every call-out, repair and major works project ultimately has somebody

behind it who has contributed towards that cost.

That deserves sensible procurement.

And perhaps the old saying still has its place.

Buy cheap, buy twice.

Not always.

But often enough that the number at the bottom of the quotation should never be the only thing we

look at.