Client's requiring 2 or more quotes for work to be carried out

Interested in opinions on quoting work for regular client's

Say company I work for quotes work for a client.
Client gets other quotes & my company cheaper on a number of occasions & always given value for money.
Client thinks he should share a bit as oppositions say why should we quote, we never win any job!

OK I understand, so why should we try so hard in the future, as cheapest price not always a winner.
I also know you can't win them all.

Also who has ownership of his plant?

Simple solution would be to pay for the work needed in preparing the quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RANGER1

Interested in opinions on quoting work for regular client's

Say company I work for quotes work for a client.
Client gets other quotes & my company cheaper on a number of occasions & always given value for money.
Client thinks he should share a bit as oppositions say why should we quote, we never win any job!

---

Multi-part question, so lets break it down.

Why should others quote for work your company tend to always win?

Why do they always win? If they offer value for money and win on price,
the other quotes must be too high, sury? Or is the quote driven down
because discounts from suppliers are better than others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RANGER1

OK I understand, so why should we try so hard in the future, as cheapest price not always a winner.
I also know you can't win them all.

---

Customers find out the hardway that price is not always the indicator
of a good job and when they learn the hard way they often pay over the
odds for the repairs, so it is up to the contractors to ensure the customer
know that quality always beats price.

The trouble is if there is a small amount of large companies in the area,
they can in effect act as a manopolly and drive prices down to the point
where the smaller indipentant just can't compeat.

Laws of market forces unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RANGER1

Also who has ownership of his plant?

---

The ownership is the owners, is it not? They can choose to do
whatever they want with it even if they don't pay their bills on time.
Once the work is complete in the UK anyway the work now belongs to
the customer and it gets very messy, involving legal expenses to sort out.

Regards

Rob

.

Rob,
Thanks, I think it's meant to keep things competitive from clients point of view, so they get a few prices.
But of course if you never win you would get ticked off.
Up to client I suppose to balance things out, but annoying if you are less expensive due to your better buying power or efficiency.

Ownership could be that you company looks after plant exclusively & takes pride in work backs up work.
If everyone has a go, harder to keep interest.
You notice something no one else has report it, then have to quote for it, why not let it crap itself, then hopefully get the call & have to fix it on the spot.

Just winging I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RANGER1

Rob,
Thanks, I think it's meant to keep things competitive from clients point of view, so they get a few prices.
But of course if you never win you would get ticked off.
Up to client I suppose to balance things out, but annoying if you are less expensive due to your better buying power or efficiency.

Ownership could be that you company looks after plant exclusively & takes pride in work backs up work.
If everyone has a go, harder to keep interest.
You notice something no one else has report it, then have to quote for it, why not let it crap itself, then hopefully get the call & have to fix it on the spot.

Just winging I suppose.

---

I missunderstood initialy what you wrote, it was only
after I reread it I understood it. :o

In the context you wrote it, I agree with you, bigger companies
or even small companies with a large work load will be able to
negociate better deals with distributers and that all adds to
lower costs or higher proffits if wanted.

It's hard I suspose and market forces will allways win out, the
stronger being able to outlast the lesser, but I think there is a
place for the smaller companies and one man band outfits, they
can compete due to lower overheads and a bit of diversification
if the need arises.

As for ownership, I know what you mean re the pride someone has
in thier work and if the customer pulls the contract yearly, always
going for the better deal, then ownership is nonexistant and ultimately
it is the customer who looses.

Not easy out there.

Rob

.

These days where accountants are insisting on a minimum number of quotes are really tough. No longer (in my opinion) can a company buy a maintenance contract and hope to make enough on repairs to be in profit, as very often the profitable repairs have to be multiply quoted and you get screwed again.
And the less scrupulous clients will expect you to match or beat a non-compliant (therefore stupid cheap) quote, knowing your company probably can't afford to argue the toss!

The industry, and any others like it, are deeply, deeply stuffed. Wish I knew who was making the dough, 'cos it's no-one I know!

Just had a client who we looked after for the past 18 years send a text message that they don't require our services now as they have found a more local guy who says that he can look after all the kit cheaper.

What really has happened is that the maintenance guy we used to have a really good relationship with left as he couldn't work with the new guy who was employed in the office. It's the same new guy who thinks that his more local man can achieve the same as we have over the years but cheaper.

I'm not sure if the guys at the top of the tree know what's going on.

Time will tell and I look forward to the phone call where I can say, I told you so, now P**s off.

I feel for you Frank.
All that Good Will built up over a very long time, not to mention Site knowledge.
I do hope the phone call comes.

24 / 7 call out usually sorts the men out from the boys!
Grizzly

Any client with common sense would apply proven contractor management and replace their contractor after 3- 5 years with an alternative contractor. This drives down the profit incumbent top loads the contract with every year and allows for a fresh set of 'eyes' and different approaches to contract.
If after first year new contractor does not perform to standard they are easily replaced or contract re-tendered.

Being a contractor this may sound alien to most but this ensures our standards stay high, makes the market a more level playing field.
Frank shows the attitude that really should be removed from contracting 'Time will tell and I look forward to the phone call where I can say, I told you so, now P**s off.'
I am sure this is just anger and in reality if the client approached him again he would be more than willing to supply service.
You have to take emotion out of contracting and realise that plucking your golden goose will only speed up its demise, rather offer professional service and treat incumbent contracts like new contracts.
Unless client has a market down turn the only person who loses contracts is you!

Reasonable point of view Hookster. But flawed in my opinion.
What we're talking about here isn't good business practice, quite the opposite. I could agree with you if the client has a reasonable, open and honest approach, and shows some sort of loyalty to good contractors. That's not what Frank's reporting, and sadly his experience with this client is a near universal situation these days.

No contractor I've ever worked for has top loaded an ongoing contract.
The client pressure is always to reduce your price, no matter what.
Agree about a fresh pair of eyes, but not - if you have any sense whatsoever - where you're screwing up your historical knowledge. Better to try & introduce the new eyes while retaining the knowledge if possible. Like encouraging your supplier to put a new guy on, or send another tradie. Which is what some firms I've worked for do, moving the guys around every so often to get that different perspective.

No doubt Frank is angry, I would be too. Especially if I had given good service & not been offered a chance to respond by open tender.

It can be all about relationships & Franks key contact moved.
In Industrial there is a basically small circle of people who work for abbatoirs, chicken processing, cool stores etc who manage these.
Best to get along with them as you don't know where they will turn up next & they have a long memory.
Also they have favourite or service/ contracting companies they are familiar with & they to can move with them.
Sometimes it works in your favour, other times against you.
Best not to have disputes or make enemies, as it might bight you.
In a way we are lucky as only really 3 other companies do the same thing with a few small shows.
We all know each other to a certain degree

Customers tend to be tired of a professional relationship over a few years. They are looking for new blood that will reduce their overheads. Sometimes this works for them tho often it won't.

Dropping their dependable service provider via text ( Franks post at #7) is practically a kick in ones Nether region.

Should they crawl back after being burnt....there are 2 options. The first choice is obvious. The second is to raise your callout and standard $ per hour.....Any bond between both party's has evaporated.

.

I think Frank is being honest with his response and I think
most tend to agree, but we all know in reality if the phone
call comes, Frank would be very professional and discuss the
options available to the customer.

One of those options discussed would no doubt be money and
probably a raise in monies owed.

Rob

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frank

Just had a client who we looked after for the past 18 years send a text message that they don't require our services now as they have found a more local guy who says that he can look after all the kit cheaper.

What really has happened is that the maintenance guy we used to have a really good relationship with left as he couldn't work with the new guy who was employed in the office. It's the same new guy who thinks that his more local man can achieve the same as we have over the years but cheaper.

I'm not sure if the guys at the top of the tree know what's going on.

Time will tell and I look forward to the phone call where I can say, I told you so, now P**s off.

---

Frank

For employees and contractors have a " restrictive clause, or covenant" built into your contract. Say that for a period of 3 years they are prevented from approaching or contracting with an existing customer.

In the case of employees specify a geographical area and ensure it is " reasonable" and not to onerous or wide. The Employment Tribunal tends to use whats called a " Pencil Blue Test" if they think the clause is too restrictive and or unfair and will strike out the clause from the contract.

For Sub Contractors agree to a non poaching term so they cannot take customers away from you.

Hope that helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abe

Frank

For employees and contractors have a " restrictive clause, or covenant" built into your contract. Say that for a period of 3 years they are prevented from approaching or contracting with an existing customer.

In the case of employees specify a geographical area and ensure it is " reasonable" and not to onerous or wide. The Employment Tribunal tends to use whats called a " Pencil Blue Test" if they think the clause is too restrictive and or unfair and will strike out the clause from the contract.

For Sub Contractors agree to a non poaching term so they cannot take customers away from you.

Hope that helps

---

Am I happy to see you here Sir!!