Consider the pros and cons of performance bonds as they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements.
The Riverside Transit Agency experience with the terms and conditions for procuring equipment and software for automatic vehicle location (AVL) and computer-aided dispatch (CAD).
RTA and SunLine chose to include performance bonds in their contractual requirements along with requirements for bid bonds (3) and liquidated damages. Early on, this caused significant deployment delays for the two agencies as the first vendor they selected was unable to supply the requisite performance bonds and the agencies were forced to begin the procurement process again. Some stakeholders felt that it was necessary to require performance bonds as a risk mitigation strategy, while others felt that it was unnecessary in this particular case and that it significantly increased costs and limited competition (i.e., some smaller vendors who specialized in CAD/AVL were unable to participate in the bid process as they did not have the required bonding capacity).
As evidenced by the Riverside example, it is important to consider the following:
- Make performance bond requirements clear to vendors at the out-set of the bid process. Failure to do so resulted in significant deployment delays for RTA and SunLine as the first vendor they selected was unable to supply the requisite performance bonds and the agencies were forced to begin the procurement process again. A discussion of risk mitigation should be an element in any pre-bid meeting with industry.
- Carefully consider the procurement situation to determine if surety bonds are appropriate. Performance bonds and other risk mitigation strategies (e.g., bid bonds, liquidated damages) may be unnecessary when procuring low-risk items such as commercial off-the-shelf software.
- Be aware that requiring performance bonds can increase project costs. It is expensive for firms to maintain bonding capacity. In order for a company to obtain a performance or bid bond, the company must enter into an agreement with a surety company and pay premiums to obtain the bond. The additional cost is often passed along to the procuring agency in the form of higher project costs.
- Be aware that requiring performance bonds may exclude smaller firms from bidding. Many smaller firms, particularly disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs), may not be able to supply a performance bond. Some stakeholders involved in the Riverside County project felt that including the requirement for performance bonds significantly limited competition (i.e., some smaller vendors who specialized in CAD/AVL for paratransit were unable to participate in the bid process as they did not have the required bonding capacity).
restricts competition, particularly among disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs).
Bonding companies exercise their discretion and assure their profits primarily by declining
to undertake excessive risks. Consequently many bidders have limited "bonding capacity."
Unnecessary performance bonds reduce their ability to bid on bonded work. Small businesses
with short histories may have particular difficulty obtaining a bond." (4)
This lesson recommends that the extent of risk mitigation necessary for any procurement should be tailored to the situation. Procuring agencies should carefully consider the pros and cons of requiring performance bonds and other risk mitigation instruments such as bid bonds because they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements. If the project is not risky, requiring a bond can lead to unnecessary implementation delays, increased project costs, and limited competition.
(1) A performance bond guarantees that the contractor will perform the contract in accordance with its terms. United States Small Business Administration (November 2005). http://www.sba.gov/financing/bonds/osgprogram.html
(2) United States Small Business Administration (November 2005). http://www.sba.gov/financing/bonds/osgprogram.html
(3) A bid bond guarantees that the bidder on a contract will enter into the contract and furnish the required payment and/or performance bonds.
(4) Federal Transit Administration Best Practices Procurement Manual (November 2005). http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/admin/BPPM/toc.html
Riverside County Transit Project Final Evaluation Report
Author: J. Rephlo, M. Carter (SAIC)
Published By: U.S. Department of Transportation
Source Date: January 2006
Average User Rating
Lesson of the Month for August, 2006 !
Intelligent Transportation Systems > Transit Management > Operations & Fleet Management > Automatic Vehicle Location / Computer-Aided Dispatch
Intelligent Transportation Systems > Transit Management > Operations & Fleet Management > Maintenance
Intelligent Transportation Systems > Transit Management > Transportation Demand Management > Dynamic Routing/Scheduling
Intelligent Transportation Systems > Transit Management > Operations & Fleet Management > Service Coordination
Intelligent Transportation Systems > Driver Assistance > Driver Communication > With Carrier/Dispatch
Show the V
automated vehicle location, computer aided dispatch, automatic vehicle locator, AVL, CAD, AVL/CAD, paratransit, demand-responsive transit