Choosing a contractor. One or several?.
The market for services in the field of engineering infrastructure is wide and diverse. It includes powerful concerns with long-standing traditions, name and reputation, medium-sized companies with small but stable turnover and tiny one-day firms. Each finds its niche and clients. Large profitable objects go to large organizations, medium-sized ones develop smaller objects, but small companies also get something. Miniature offices, shops, private courtyards — for large organizations they are not profitable, but for small ones — just right.
When choosing a contractor, the customer is often guided by the price. Driven by the desire to get an acceptable solution for little money, he gives preference to small organizations that bypass solid competitors by declaring high quality and low cost of their services. In reality, it sometimes happens that the customer gets only the latter. And the cheapness of the services offered is often just an illusion. Lack of experience in fulfilling large orders, the necessary technical means and equipment are characteristic signs of young companies that are not firmly established. Deadlines are delayed, systems often fail or do not work at all, there are either no projects or they do not withstand the examination. Difficulties arise with regulatory authorities: inspectors do not accept networks installed in violation of norms and rules. The customer can lose considerable sums on repairs, maintenance, or even replacement of carelessly installed systems. As a result, his costs will significantly exceed those that would have initially been spent on the services of a large integrator company.
Construction sites usually require the implementation of a complex of systems: power supply, computer networks, communications, fire alarms, air conditioning, and water supply. It is more convenient and reliable to deal with one contractor who will implement all the systems, undertake warranty service obligations, and be responsible for the quality of the entire complex. It is wiser to involve a well-established large company that will not go bankrupt or disappear. Many clients do this, but not all. In order to save money, customers enter into contracts with small firms, tempted by low prices. In this case, the situation is even worse than when installing one or two systems. Small companies, as a rule, specialize in one area, and subcontract the rest. It is quite difficult to control subcontractors, take into account possible risks, and deliver the facility on time and with due quality if the work organization is not well-organized. Therefore, violations of regulations often occur, technical decisions are made without taking into account the development prospects of the facility and the possibility of integrating them with other systems.
Proposals from serious organizations seem less attractive due to their high cost, but they often justify themselves. The advantage of large integrator companies over small, highly specialized firms, which have the only illusory advantage — low cost, is obvious. They are able to deliver a facility «turnkey», perform a full cycle of work from design to construction and operation of utility networks. Integrators provide a wide range of services, perform design, equipment supply, installation, maintenance, and train personnel. If such an organization cannot carry out any work independently, it transfers it to a subcontractor. But even in this case, the risk of delays and low quality is minimal, since such companies work with permanent subcontractors, have established connections with them, and, therefore, are able to foresee possible risks. By the way, small highly specialized organizations are an excellent option as a subcontractor. They have everything to perform a small amount of work in certain areas: good specialists, connections and work experience.Sometimes the customer enters into an agreement with several contractors for the implementation of different systems at one facility. He is guided by what he believes is economic benefit. The customer requires that the cost of each system be highlighted in commercial proposals in order to select the most attractive solutions in terms of price. Thus, he essentially independently models the structure of engineering networks, which may ultimately turn out to be redundant and inconsistent. Ultimately, the customer loses significantly compared to if he had contacted one company that would have performed the entire range of services. Working in an integrator company, I have the opportunity to observe how the systems are coupled. Even when cooperating in one department, under a single management, it is not so easy to coordinate the work of several specialists. This is possible only due to the coordination of work, the choice of a single strategy, the ability to quickly adapt to each other. One can imagine how complicated this process is when people from different organizations are involved in different systems. Overlays, inconsistency of actions, missed deadlines, the impossibility of implementing the optimal solution and, as a result, losses are inevitable.
Often, we have to join the work when some systems have already been implemented and it is necessary to expand them and equip the facility additionally. In such cases, it is difficult to find the ends, understand what has already been installed, and connect the systems. The solution turns out to be ineffective, its implementation takes a lot of time, and it entails much more costs than when implementing the same solution by one contractor.
If the prospects for the development of engineering solutions are taken into account during construction, their subsequent operation will be cheaper. It is ideal when cooperation occurs at the initial stage of construction, when the building design can be coordinated with utility networks. This will allow the implementation of utility networks with lower costs for both work and materials. There will be no need to break down walls, open floors and ceilings to lay pipes and trays for cables. In this case, cable routes will be installed in the most convenient way and used with maximum efficiency, since different engineering subsystems will be able to use one communications infrastructure.
More and more often, tender rules stipulate the mandatory presence of licenses and a quality standard certificate. This is not bad, but the presence of these documents in itself is not a sufficient indicator of the company's reliability.
After all, a quality management system is not just a means of obtaining a certificate. If applied and monitored correctly, its use has a positive effect on the quality of the company's work. Customers expect integrator companies not only to perform work, but also to implement cost-effective and technological solutions with a guaranteed level of quality, the achievement of which is facilitated by process standardization and the introduction of quality control. A quality management system certified for compliance with the requirements of an international standard is aimed at satisfying customer requirements with minimal costs with maximum quality of services provided, in compliance with current standards and regulations. It allows you to track each stage of the work performed, make it as efficient as possible, and reduce the implementation time.
The use of special planning programs helps make the most cost-effective decision. When a company is simultaneously implementing several projects, comprehensive planning is indispensable. Programs allow you to calculate labor costs, track deadlines, and prioritize certain works. With their help, you can reduce costs and reduce implementation time. A detailed project plan and resource management help to minimize the costs of implementing systems and their subsequent operation. Of course, effective planning is achieved not only by software, the main factor of success is the skill of the company's managers.
Small firms are certainly needed. There are segments in which large organizations simply do not work, but for small ones they are favorable. In addition, the presence of small firms helps to reduce market monopolization.