In condominium buildings, problems rarely begin as major failures. They often start quietly, an intermittent complaint about inconsistent heating, a system requiring more maintenance than expected, or equipment not performing as intended. Over time, these issues accumulate, eventually developing into larger operational challenges that demand significant time and financial resources.

In many cases, the root of these challenges can be traced back to decisions made long before the issue became visible, often at the procurement stage.

Procurement is typically viewed as a process of obtaining competitive pricing and awarding work efficiently. For boards and property managers operating within tight budgets, the pressure to secure the lowest cost is both real and understandable. However, in high-rise residential buildings, where systems are interconnected and performance expectations are high, procurement decisions should extend beyond cost. They define scope, assign responsibility, and influence how risk is carried through the lifecycle of the building.

The Problem with Lowest Cost Thinking

Cost is often the most visible and easily comparable metric. When multiple bids are received, the focus naturally shifts to the bottom line. Selecting the lowest bid is often viewed as fiscally responsible and a demonstration of due diligence. However, this approach assumes that all bids represent the same scope and level of completeness. In practice, this is rarely the case.

Differences in interpretation, scope omissions, and varying assumptions about existing conditions can result in proposals that appear comparable in price but differ significantly in what is being delivered. Without a clearly defined and technically aligned scope, procurement becomes a comparison of numbers rather than value.

In high-rise buildings, where mechanical and electrical systems are interconnected and operate under varying conditions, these gaps are not always immediately apparent. They typically surface during construction, through change orders, or later as operational issues and increased maintenance demands.

The result is often not a reduction in cost, but a deferral of it. Initial savings achieved through a lower contract value are frequently offset by additional expenditures required to address deficiencies, performance issues, or items not captured in the original scope. Lowest cost thinking does not eliminate risk. It simply relocates it, often to a stage where it is more difficult and more expensive to address.

Procurement as Risk Allocation

Procurement decisions do more than define cost; they define where risk resides. Every project carries inherent uncertainties: existing site conditions, system constraints and coordination challenges. The procurement process determines how these uncertainties are addressed, and more importantly, who is responsible for them.

When the scope is clearly defined, performance requirements are articulated, and assumptions are documented, risk can be managed proactively. However, when procurement is driven primarily by cost, these elements are often left open to interpretation. This creates gaps that are not immediately visible at the time of tender, but that emerge later as disputes, change orders, or performance issues.

In many cases, the lowest bid reflects not greater efficiency, but a different interpretation of scope. It may exclude necessary components, underestimate complexity, or rely on assumptions that do not align with actual building conditions. While this may reduce the initial contract value, it increases the likelihood that unresolved issues will surface during construction or operation.

Procurement, therefore, should not be simply a financial decision. It should be an evaluation of competing bids, assessing technical completeness, proponent experience, and alignment with project requirements.

Where Things Go Wrong

In practice, procurement gaps often become visible only after systems are installed and placed into operation.

One example is riser expansion and support systems in high-rise buildings. Issues such as noise, pipe movement, and premature failures are often not isolated defects, but the result of how the work was procured and executed. While the design intent may require properly located anchors, guides, and expansion loops, these elements are not always fully captured in the tender documents, with accountability distributed across multiple parties. As a result, the installed system does not align with the intended performance.

Although the initial contract value may appear competitive, the consequences emerge over time. Uncontrolled thermal movement places stress on piping, leading to noise, wear, and eventual premature failure. Correcting these issues after occupancy is invasive, disruptive to residents, and significantly more costly than addressing them during original construction.

Procurement gaps are also evident in equipment replacement projects. Boiler replacement projects involving high-efficiency condensing boilers are a common example. As of January 2025, Ontario requires new boilers to be high-efficiency condensing boilers; however, achieving condensing operation depends on system conditions such as low return water temperatures and appropriate control strategies. Where procurement focuses primarily on boiler replacement, required system modifications, such as piping reconfiguration and controls upgrades, are often excluded to reduce upfront costs.

In these cases, the building incurs the capital cost of high-efficiency equipment without realizing the expected operational savings. The issue is not the equipment itself, but a misalignment between procurement scope and system performance requirements. Addressing this gap after installation typically requires additional upgrades, often at a higher cost than if they had been included from the outset.

In both examples, the perceived savings at procurement do not eliminate cost; they defer it. More importantly, they shift risk into the operational phase of the building, where it becomes more complex and more expensive to resolve.

What Smart Procurement Looks Like

Smart procurement is not defined by selecting the lowest bid, but by selecting the proposal that delivers the best overall value when evaluated against the project’s technical, operational, and long-term requirements.

This begins with a clearly defined scope. Tender documents must accurately reflect the intended design, including all components required for proper system performance. Where the scope is incomplete or open to interpretation, bids will vary not only in cost, but in what is being proposed, making meaningful comparison difficult.

Equally important is the evaluation process. Bids should be reviewed not only for cost, but for technical completeness, underlying assumptions, and alignment with project objectives. Differences in approach, exclusions, and qualifications must be understood and addressed before award, rather than deferred to construction.

Early involvement of technical consultants plays a critical role in this process. By contributing to scope development, reviewing submissions, and clarifying intent, consultants help ensure that procurement decisions are informed by both cost considerations and system performance requirements.

Finally, smart procurement requires a shift in perspective, from initial cost to lifecycle value. Decisions made at the procurement stage influence not only construction outcomes but also long-term operation, maintenance, and capital planning. Evaluating these impacts upfront allows boards and property managers to make decisions that are both financially responsible and operationally sound.

In this context, procurement becomes more than a transactional process. It becomes a structured approach to aligning cost, performance, and risk, ensuring that the value realized over time reflects the investment made at the outset.

Conclusion

Procurement decisions in condominium buildings are made once, but their impact is long-lasting. What appears to be a cost-saving measure at the outset often results in increased maintenance, operational inefficiencies, and higher lifecycle costs.

Smart procurement is not about spending more; it is about evaluating better. By prioritizing technical completeness, alignment, and long-term performance, procurement decisions can reduce risk rather than defer it. Because the true cost of “cost savings” is not realized at award, but in how the building performs over time.<

Kaezad Wania, P.Eng., is Vice President of Engineering & Operations at Baypath Inc. Kaezad has over ten years of experience in building systems engineering, supporting condominium corporations through retrofits, audits, technical investigations, and energy efficiency projects.

www.baypath.ca

View PDF View Flipbook Back to Latest Issue