The Hidden Costs of the Lowest Bid: Why Lower-Priced Security Solutions Can Cost You More
Think twice before jumping at the lowest bid for your next security project. Hidden costs, compromised security integrity, poor support, and limited flexibility could cost you more in the long run.
While choosing the lowest bid on security projects can appear cost-effective initially, it frequently leads to long-term complications that can impact security performance, reliability, and overall value. Here are the primary concerns we’ve encountered and the issues they can present for organizations.
Compromised Security Integrity
Low bids may cut corners by choosing non-compliant or untested solutions that fail to meet security and safety compliance.
Software and hardware might lack the infrastructure and critical updates needed to counter emerging vulnerabilities and cyber risks.
Inconsistent product lines might be chosen, even if an organization already uses a certain brand at most locations. Taking on a new system that isn’t built, licensed, or maintained the same can be challenging for end users. For example, managing multiple logins, access, and vendors is often confusing and cumbersome.
Impact: Increased risk of regulatory penalties and breaches and decreased operational efficiency.
Lower Quality of Products
Equipment may not be aligned with industry standards and therefore less durable or reliable. Consider a security camera - there are so many features and functions (ie. chip set, firmware, analytics, warranties, etc.), making a camera from one vendor vastly different from another. End users might also experience subjective differences regarding view quality or color saturation.
Software and hardware might lack features or integration capabilities that support workflow efficiency.
Impact: Increased downtime, more frequent system failures, and process inefficiencies leading to greater overall spending compared to higher-quality solutions.
Limited Expertise and Experience
All bidders must account for the costs of employees, transportation, and products, all of which are sourced from the open market and priced according to their value. If a bid is significantly lower, it’s often because one of those things is compromised or inferior. Quality of work often suffers because low bids may cut costs by employing less-skilled labor or bypassing certifications and training.
Employees may not have experience deploying solutions for specific environments with strict compliance requirements.
Impact: Poor installation resulting in change orders and systems that fail to meet operational and regulatory needs.
Project Exclusions & Insufficient Support
Many products intended to have a lower entry cost end up with higher maintenance fees because vendors charge extra for critical features or after-sales support. Services like system design, testing, proactive maintenance and updates, training, documentation, etc. are not always included in the original bid.
Other hidden fees such as permits, lift rentals, job supplies, etc. are often excluded.
Sometimes adding new equipment requires an upgrade to existing controllers or servers, which is often omitted initially.
Impact: These exclusions and the lack of transparency ultimately result in higher overall expenses, unexpected financial strain, and disruptions to project execution.
Lack of Customization and Scalability
Lowest bids typically offer “one-size-fits-all” solutions that may not address unique security needs.
Selecting the least expensive option to meet minimum specifications has limited foresight for system expansions or integration with advanced technologies.
Impact: Systems can quickly become outdated or expensive to upgrade for future needs or threats. This leads to change orders during implementation or the need to prematurely modify or replace the solution later.
Vendor Lock-In
Many low-bid systems are proprietary which locks organizations into one kind of technology and vendor.
Because proprietary systems aren’t open source, integrating with other products to solve new problems can be difficult or impossible. Additionally, customization limitations can lead to unmet operational needs and suboptimal workflows.
Dependence on a single vendor can also be challenging. What if they aren’t meeting support and response expectations? What if they can’t keep enough qualified technicians?
Impact: Limited support, flexibility, and growth potential can leave end users with unsupported solutions and systems that require costly overhauls.
The Cost vs. Value Trade-Off
While the lowest bid can be tempting for budget-conscious end users, value-driven solutions typically provide a better return on investment. A reputable integrator focuses on:
High-quality, compliant systems
Solutions tailored to the client, industry, and environment
Long-term support, flexibility, and maintenance
Consistency and efficiency
Our advice? If you’re an end user, focus on more than the sticker price and consider collaborating with an industry expert to develop bid specifications. An expert can help you evaluate key factors such as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), vendor experience, product quality, and long-term support. Then determine your non-negotiables and identify areas where you’re willing to make trade-offs. Our hope is that you’ll be left with both a quality solution aligned with your unique needs and organizational goals, and a security investment that is protected for the long haul.