Why Lowest Price Doesn't Always Mean Best Value.

 Over the years, I've had the privilege of working alongside clients, consultants, contractors, suppliers and countless professionals who shape our built environment.

The construction industry is constantly evolving. While we have made tremendous progress, I believe there is always room to challenge conventional thinking, share experiences and learn from one another.

With that in mind, I'm starting a new LinkedIn series called Perspective.

These aren't meant to be definitive answers, nor are they the views of any organisation I represent. They are simply my personal observations—drawn from more than two decades in the construction industry—as we collectively strive to build better projects, stronger businesses and a more resilient industry.

For the many years since I started working, one question has shaped many construction tenders -

"Who's the lowest bidder?"

It's a fair question. After all, every client has a budget to manage and stakeholders to answer to. But perhaps it's time we ask a second question -

"Who is most likely to deliver the best value?"

There is an important difference.

The lowest tender may reduce the initial project cost. However, if that decision leads to delays, extensive rework, safety incidents, contractual disputes or higher maintenance costs after handover, was it truly the lowest cost?

In construction, value extends far beyond the number on the tender submission.

It is reflected in consistent execution, strong planning, financial resilience, a capable project team, an uncompromising safety culture and the ability to deliver quality with certainty.

The projects that leave a lasting legacy are rarely remembered because they were the cheapest.

They are remembered because they were delivered safely, completed with quality, handed over on time, and continue to serve their communities for decades.

Price will always matter.

But perhaps it shouldn't be the only measure that matters.


As our industry continues to evolve, I believe the conversation should increasingly shift from "lowest price" to "best long-term value."


What are your thoughts? Should procurement place greater emphasis on overall value creation rather than simply the lowest initial cost?