Originally posted by sabine
I am speaking generally about the sector Christos, not with specific regard to RCR .
If I want the government to do anything it is probably to review it’s need to go for ‘cheapest is best’ without considering the expense of potential consequences down the line .. and I have an issue with it working with businesses still engaged in law suits over corruption charges even if there is no one else .
If that is totalitarianism I guess I am advocating it ...
( ...although... “a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state”? )
.....you drawing that inference is a bit of a projection on your part I think .
Actually my post was not to advocate anything political just to express disappointment on behalf of the companies going broke and to comment it appears to me whilst on one hand the government is reviewing this area, on the other it introduces legislation designed to support larger players (as per this post
36564349)
Here is mention of the review I was referring to :
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/subcontractors-on-nsw-infrastructure-lack-safeguards/10177084
“Trust system considered to protect subcontractors
Following the collapse of Ostwald Brothers last year, the State Government was forced to reimburse 23 subcontractors owed more than $7 million.
The Government is now looking to reform the Building and Construction Security of Payment Act and is seeking feedback on the idea of a cascading statutory trust system.
Minister for Better Regulation Matt Keane said previous reviews of the act showed a trust system was the best way to protect subcontractors down the contractual chain from insolvency or misuse of funds further up the chain.
Mr Keane said 20 per cent of all company insolvencies in New South Wales over the past 10 years had been in the building sector.
He said while the review was still under discussion and would ultimately require legislative reform, its success would depend on the Office of Fair Trading's ability to enforce the trust system.
Ms Hobbs has welcomed the review, but said industry reform was being opposed by some of the big players.”.....
See also
https://thewest.com.au/business/com...ect-to-fairer-play-for-subbies-ng-b881003326z
Thanks, I can see what you are saying but is it really the role of Government to ensure that subcontractors aren't underbidding?
In the solar business, RCR were the leader. It must be assumed by all parties ( other than competitors) that RCR knew what they were signing up to. There is no way anyone would have questioned their estimates.
I do agree, though, that in other cases (where we aren't talking about the market leader) that the quantum of the bid displays the competence. If one is obviously underpriced, then the acceptor of the bid should be fully aware of what position they putting their subcontractor into. I have worked on tenders where it was obvious applicants were incapable of the works, based on their under pricing, under resourcing and under timing. We threw the bid in the bid.
Alternately, I have rejected customers as I felt they had underbid and would be a nightmare to work with.
I don't see the need for Government intervention. All parties are, normally, in full knowledge of who they are sleeping with and they should wear the consequences. Legislation and common law already allow for most exceptions to this.
(20min delay)