Choosing the lowest bid can feel like a smart financial decision, especially in a competitive construction market where budgets are tight and pressure to save is high. On the surface, a cheaper proposal appears to deliver the same outcome for less money, making it easy to justify moving forward quickly. However, construction projects are complex undertakings where pricing reflects far more than materials and labor alone. A bid that comes in significantly lower than the rest often signals omissions, unrealistic assumptions, or cost-cutting measures that can undermine the entire project.
Over time, those early savings frequently give way to escalating expenses in the form of change orders, schedule delays, quality issues, and ongoing maintenance problems. Inexperienced crews, inadequate planning, and insufficient oversight can quickly turn a low upfront price into a costly long-term burden. Understanding why the cheapest bid so often leads to the most expensive project requires looking beyond the initial number and examining how value, risk, and accountability truly shape the total cost of construction.
Key Reasons the Cheapest Bid Costs More:
When evaluating bids for your commercial facility in California, you're likely drawn to the lowest number. It makes sense—keeping costs down is part of your job. But experienced facility managers know that the initial bid price tells only part of the story.
The data is clear: 57% of low-bid projects exceed their original budgets, while only 41% finish on budget. The "savings" from that attractive low bid often evaporate through change orders, delays, and quality issues.
This isn't about contractors being dishonest. It's about understanding what drives low bids—incomplete estimates, unrealistic schedules, razor-thin profit margins, or deliberate underbidding with plans to recover costs later. Each scenario creates risk for your facility and budget.
The construction industry has long operated under a "low-bid wins" mentality, particularly for public projects. But this approach creates a race to the bottom that hurts everyone—owners, contractors, and ultimately the quality of California's built environment.
Smart facility managers are shifting their focus from finding the cheapest contractor to identifying the best value. This means evaluating experience, safety records, financial stability, and past performance alongside price. The goal isn't to overpay—it's to avoid the expensive surprises that come with underpaying.
The allure of the lowest bid is powerful, especially in a competitive market like California. However, this initial attraction often masks a deeper, more problematic reality: a "race to the bottom" that compromises quality and ultimately drives up costs. When selecting a contractor, we understand the temptation to simply pick the cheapest option. After all, it seems like a straightforward way to save money.
The "hard bid" scenario is a prime example of this race. In a hard bid, jobs are awarded based solely on price. The contractor who submits the lowest bid by the deadline gets the job. This method often gives no consideration to a contractor's qualifications, reputation, skill level, or suitability for the project. It's a system that incentivizes contractors to shave every possible dollar off their estimate, often leading to unrealistic numbers.
For subcontractors, this creates immense pressure. They might second-guess their carefully crafted bids, wondering if they were "too bold" or "far too low." When a general contractor (GC) resorts to price as the single criterion, it can feel like a "race to the bottom," where quality and expertise are overlooked. This isn't a recipe for a successful project; it almost sets a project up to fail because corners will have to be cut somewhere to meet those razor-thin profit margins.
One of the primary drivers of an unrealistically low bid is an inaccurate estimate or an unrealistic schedule. Contractors, either through inexperience or a deliberate strategy to win the job, might submit a bid that doesn't fully account for all project complexities, potential delays, or the true cost of quality materials and skilled labor. They might make assumptions that don't align with the project's real needs or the client's expectations.
This is particularly common when preliminary drawings and specifications lack sufficient detail. Vague language, missing line items, or an absence of allowances and contingencies force contractors to make educated guesses. When these guesses are wrong, or intentionally understated to secure the contract, the project owner is left to pick up the tab later through change orders.
Low bids inherently mean low profit margins. For general contractors in California, the average pre-tax net profit is often between a tight 1.4 and 2.4 percent. This leaves very little room for error or unexpected costs. When a contractor wins a job with such a thin margin, their cash flow can become precarious.
A contractor's ability to deliver quality work is directly tied to their cash flow. If they're constantly struggling to make ends meet, they might delay purchasing materials, hire less experienced staff, or even struggle to pay subcontractors on time. These financial strains can lead to project delays and a decline in work quality. For subcontractors, being at the bottom of the payment chain means they often bear the brunt of these cash flow issues, forcing them to take on excessive risk.
The pervasive "low-bid wins" mentality fosters a scarcity mindset throughout the construction industry. Everyone, from owners to GCs to subcontractors, feels like they're fighting for survival. This mindset narrows focus to immediate gratification and short-term problem-solving, stifling innovation and the ability to adapt. Instead of collaborating to find the best solutions, the emphasis shifts to simply being the cheapest. This ultimately holds the construction industry back from reaching its full potential, limiting our collective ability to innovate and deliver truly exceptional projects in California.
The negative consequences of hard bids often trickle down to subcontractors. They have little negotiating power, even in a robust market. A GC who wins a project with a low bid might then pressure their subcontractors to accept even lower rates to maintain their own profit margins. This can force subs to cut corners, use cheaper materials, or assign less experienced crews to a project. While some emerging subcontractors might strategically accept lower rates to gain experience or enter new markets, consistently bidding low can be detrimental to their long-term viability and the quality of their work.
One of the most significant contributors to cost discrepancies and project failures stemming from low bids is the initial planning phase. Preliminary drawings and specifications, especially in custom home building or complex commercial projects, often lack critical detail. They might outline the basic structure but omit specific product specifications, material quality, or intricate design elements.
When plans are vague, contractors are forced to make assumptions during the bidding process. For example, a drawing might specify "siding," but if it doesn't clarify "high-end metal siding" versus "vinyl siding," a low-bid contractor will naturally price in the cheaper option. What seems like a minor detail can lead to substantial cost increases later when the client's expectations for high-quality materials don't match the contractor's low-bid assumptions. This ambiguity creates immense risk, as owners often overlook these granular details when starting a ground-up project, leading to unforeseen expenses. This is why we emphasize the importance of thorough upfront planning, helping owners understand what they might overlook when starting a Ground-Up Construction project.
The initial attraction of a low bid can quickly give way to a cascade of hidden costs that place significant strain on the project. These expenses are rarely included in the original quote, yet they often emerge once work is underway, leaving little room to avoid them. What begins as a seemingly economical decision can escalate into a series of unplanned financial demands that disrupt budgets and timelines.
As these unexpected costs accumulate, the true price of the project becomes clear. Change orders, corrections, and added scope transform the lowest upfront number into a far more expensive outcome, reinforcing a reality that many project owners encounter only after commitments have already been made.
One of the most insidious tactics associated with low bids is the "bait and switch." A contractor provides an unrealistically low initial quote to secure the contract. Once work begins, they claim to encounter "unforeseen issues" or argue that the original scope was incomplete, leading to a barrage of expensive change orders. These change orders often come with inflated pricing, as the contractor is now in a position of power, knowing you're already committed to the project. This is how they recoup the losses from their initial low bid, often turning the project into a far more expensive endeavor than if you had chosen a higher, more honest bid from the outset. This lack of transparency is a red flag, as a trustworthy contractor will provide a comprehensive bid that accounts for all foreseeable costs.
Scope creep is another common hidden cost. It happens when project requirements or deliverables expand beyond what was initially agreed upon, often without proper change management. In the context of low bids, it can arise from intentionally vague initial scopes. A contractor might bid on a minimal interpretation of the project, knowing that the client will eventually need additional elements that were implicitly expected but not explicitly detailed. Each addition then becomes a change order, adding to the overall cost and timeline.
The statistics speak volumes: 57% of low-bid projects exceed their original budgets, and 46% fail to meet deadlines. These aren't just numbers; they represent real financial and operational disruptions for your facility.
When a project experiences delays due to inexperienced crews, material shortages (from cash flow issues), or poor planning, your operations can be significantly impacted. Lost revenue from downtime, extended temporary facilities, or missed business opportunities can quickly eclipse any initial savings from a low bid. Moreover, substandard work often necessitates costly rework and corrections. Industry studies estimate that construction defects and rework can add up to 30% of total project costs. These mistakes are not just expensive to fix; they also extend timelines and cause further disruption. This is why quality Commercial Building Repairs are often necessitated by initial low-bid work.
Dealing with a low-bid contractor often means a greater management burden for your internal team. You might find yourselves constantly overseeing their work, clarifying details, resolving disputes, and chasing progress. This diverts valuable resources and time away from your core business operations, adding an unseen but very real cost to the project. A true partner, like RSVC, aims to alleviate this burden, not add to it, by delivering on promises and maintaining transparent communication.
The immediate financial impact of a low bid is often only the first consequence. The effects frequently extend into the quality and safety of the construction work itself, where corners may be cut to compensate for unrealistic pricing. Inferior materials, rushed workmanship, and insufficient oversight can introduce risks that are not always visible during construction but emerge over time as performance issues or safety concerns.
These long-term failures can result in costly repairs, compliance problems, and even liability exposure that far exceed any initial savings. What appears to be a budget-friendly decision at the outset can ultimately compromise the integrity of the entire project, creating financial and operational burdens that linger long after construction is complete.
To maintain profitability on a low bid, contractors are often forced to make compromises. This frequently means using cheaper, subpar materials that may not meet industry standards or your long-term performance expectations. Similarly, they might hire lower-skilled or inexperienced labor to cut costs. While these individuals might be cheaper, their lack of expertise can lead to poor craftsmanship, structural issues, leaks, and aesthetic flaws that are difficult and expensive to fix down the line.
Safety should never be a line item to trim, but tragically, it often is when contractors are operating on razor-thin margins. Cutting corners on safety protocols, providing inadequate personal protective equipment, or rushing through hazardous tasks can lead to increased risks of accidents and injuries on the job site. A study on construction worker safety provides valuable evidence linking low-price bids to compromised safety management, increasing unsafe behaviors among on-site workers.
Furthermore, low-bid contractors may carry inadequate general liability or workers' compensation insurance to save money. If an accident occurs on your property, and their insurance is insufficient, you, the property owner, could be held legally and financially responsible. This potential liability significantly outweighs any initial savings from a low bid. In California, ensuring every contractor on your site is fully insured and adheres to stringent safety protocols is paramount for protecting your assets and your team.
The most significant and often overlooked cost of choosing the cheapest bid is the long-term consequence. Projects built with subpar materials and unskilled labor are prone to premature system failures. This means that elements like roofing, HVAC systems, electrical components, or plumbing might fail much sooner than expected, requiring costly repairs and replacements years before they should be necessary.
Beyond the financial burden, there's also the damage to your reputation. A poorly executed project can reflect negatively on your organization, affecting client perception and trust. When you factor in the cost of repeated repairs, increased maintenance, operational disruptions, and potential safety incidents, the total cost of ownership for a low-bid project often far exceeds that of a project executed with a focus on value and quality.
The overwhelming evidence suggests that focusing solely on the lowest bid is a false economy. To truly achieve project success and long-term value, facility managers in California must shift their focus from price to value. This means embracing a "Best Value Procurement" approach.
Best Value Procurement is a selection method that considers factors beyond just the initial price. While price is still a component, it’s evaluated alongside a contractor's qualifications, experience, past performance, technical approach, and project plan. The goal is to select the contractor who offers the best overall value and the lowest risk for the project's success. This approach acknowledges that a slightly higher initial investment in a qualified contractor can lead to significantly lower total project costs, fewer delays, and a higher quality outcome.
Research supports this shift: Best Value contractors had 37% less cost growth than lowest-bid contractors. The average cost growth for projects using Best Value procurement was 7.6%, while low-bid procurement projects exceeded 12%. This means that while a Best Value contractor might have a slightly higher upfront bid, the overall project cost is often lower due to reduced change orders, less rework, and better schedule adherence.
This approach transforms the relationship from a transactional "lowest price wins" dynamic to a collaborative partnership. It encourages transparency and open communication, ensuring that all parties are aligned on project goals and expectations from the outset. When you're ready to select a partner for your next project, knowing the right Questions to Ask a Commercial Construction Company can make all the difference.
Moving beyond the lowest bid requires a more comprehensive evaluation process. Here are key criteria we recommend for assessing contractors in California:
Choosing a Best Value contractor fosters a true partnership, leading to numerous benefits:
An unrealistically low bid often stands out significantly from other bids—sometimes by more than 10-15%. Key indicators include vague language, missing line items for essential components, or an absence of allowances and contingencies for unforeseen circumstances. A professional, honest bid should be detailed, transparent, and reflect a thorough understanding of the project scope, materials, and labor required. If a bid looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. It's often a sign that the contractor has either made a significant error in their estimation or is intentionally underbidding with the expectation of making up the difference through change orders once the project has started.
"Best Value Procurement" is a contractor selection method that goes beyond simply choosing the lowest price. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors, including the contractor's qualifications, experience, past performance, technical approach, safety record, and proposed project plan, in addition to their price. The goal is to identify the contractor who offers the optimal combination of quality, expertise, and cost, ensuring the project's overall success and providing the lowest total cost of ownership, rather than just the lowest initial expenditure. This method recognizes that the true value of a project extends far beyond its upfront price tag.
Historically, many public agencies in California and elsewhere have been bound by laws requiring them to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder to ensure fairness and prevent corruption. However, there's a growing understanding that this "lowest bid" approach often leads to the problems we've discussed. Consequently, many public entities are now shifting towards more flexible procurement methods, such as "Best Value" or "Qualifications-Based Selection." These methods allow public agencies to consider a contractor's experience, technical expertise, past performance, and safety record alongside price. This crucial shift helps ensure that taxpayer-funded projects result in higher quality, more durable infrastructure that serves the community effectively and avoids the long-term financial pitfalls of simply choosing the cheapest option.
True project success, particularly for critical facilities across California, begins with a different way of thinking about construction decisions. Rather than treating a project as a commodity to be awarded to the lowest bidder, it should be approached as a strategic investment that depends on a reliable and accountable partnership. This perspective shifts the focus from short-term cost savings to long-term performance, risk management, and overall project value.
RSVC Construction partners with commercial clients and project managers who value financial clarity and disciplined project execution. By applying proven cost control practices and leveraging experienced leadership, RSVC Construction helps ensure that construction investments are managed responsibly from preconstruction through closeout. To learn how a focused, professional approach to cost tracking can support your next commercial project, connect with RSVC Construction and start building with confidence and control.
At RSVC, we know every building is unique. We take a personalized approach, starting with energy audits and guiding you through implementation. Our expert team delivers solutions for your specific needs, building partnerships and creating lasting value. The journey to energy efficiency can seem complex, but you don't have to go it alone. Whether retrofitting or building new, we help you make informed decisions that align with your goals. Let's transform your properties into high-performing assets.
Ready to take the next step? Let's start a conversation about how energy-efficient systems can work for your California property.
