Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> Declan Murphy wrote:
> 
>>>>>>The impracticalities for me are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is your financial situation which you joke about, also irrelevant?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>>Is this the proper attitude to have for business? <snip>
>>
>>Of course it is the proper attitude to have. There is absolutely no
>>requirement for the Expo organizers to select firms with weaker balance
>>sheets, or bend the rules to make it "more practical" for weaker firms
>>to tender.
> 
> Why does "weak" or lacking money mean lack of ability to provide goods and services, or preclude being
> even be the best provider? Even Kajima and Toyota started out somewhere.

Insufficient capitalization means insufficient resources to handle large
scale projects. It does not of course preclude a smaller firm from
bidding for smaller and more achievable projects. That is why I wrote -
"As a general rule a company would only tender for a) what they were
actually capable of doing, b) what was worth doing. Put two and two
together and there are usually ample (different) opportunities for firms
of all sizes."

> And why is your own financial situation absolutely irrelevant to you?

At no stage in any of my proceeding posts have I said any such thing.
You are assuming it, seemingly projecting from my views that the
decision makers involved in a public tender should not take their eyes
off the quality/cost ball and have some sort of preferential option for
weaker players. Your reading comprehension skills surprise me a bit -
are you sure you're not an English teacher or sumthin?


-- 
I am not who I think I am
I am not who you think I am
I am who I think you think I am

...or some such shite.