There does need to be some expertise to determine if models are comparable. The bid request for a school here in Laredo was quite specific as to level of quality desired and a "dealer" from Dallas sold a very poor likeness of a piano to them (underbid everyone else) and insisted it was the same quality. No-one in purchasing wanted to be educated or bothered to check his claim. The relationship between purchasing and the teachers to the bid specifications can get rather stoney, to say the least. Requiring that pianos are auditioned is one way to get some balance back into the process. Andrew Anderson On Aug 27, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Fred Sturm wrote: > On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Andrew Anderson wrote: > >> Mr Fine groups good and bad Chinese pianos in too much the same >> basket. Some are obviously better but he chooses to with-hold >> improved ratings because "they haven't established a long enough >> track record." > > > I agree that one would not want to follow Larry Fine blindly, but > it could be useful as an "objective" source under some > circumstances. For the case in question, I assume it would strongly > support the preference for Yamaha, for instance. This is, perhaps, > the kind of evidence purchasing departments would consider credible. > My strategy is to list acceptable makes and models - based on what > is available from my vendors - as what I am seeking bids for. Then I > add language that allows vendors to submit bids on comparable > models. That way I can determine whether they are, indeed, > comparable. It allows flexibility to purchase unknown or lesser > known makes, but also makes it easier to exclude them when they are > obviously inferior. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > fssturm at unm.edu > http://www.youtube.com/fredsturm >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC