Pardon the anonimity, but we just got past a big governmental investigation in my area regarding this issue and I don’t want to stir up the waters.
I want to know who the vendors are that are offering Porches and Ferraris? Apparently, I have the good(?) fortune to live in an area where the market is small enough that no one bothers to suck up to the specifiers.
Legally speaking, as far as I know, the accepting of gifts only becomes a legal issue when the project is publicly funded. A vendor potentially could sue if they discovered that we were specifying competitors because they gave us gifts. This however, would be extremely unlikely to occur. Vendors do not make sales by suing specifiers. Also, the entities that employ architects and specifiers are really the ones responsible for ensuring that public money is spent competitively. Our obligation is to just comply with the Owners standards for publicly funded projects (and, as always, to use good sound judgment.) If the owner tells us not to accept gifts from specified vendors, then we are obligated to comply.
Ethically speaking, I believe that receiving gifts would be wrong only if the gifts were so large that a specifier might feel obligated to specify the gift-givers products or if the promised gift is so desirable that the specifier is encouraged to specify a manufacturer in hopes of subsequently obtaining a promised gift. In both cases, the gift would have to be substantial. But even then, this really comes down to the character of the specifier. Personally, I presume that I wouldnt let any gift affect my decisions but, then again, I dont have vendors offering me cars or vacations. It really comes down to standard practices in the industry. When all the manufacturers of a particular type of product are offering the same types of gift-giving marketing strategies and it isnt so extravagant that smaller manufacturers cant afford to do it then we probably shouldnt worry about it.
Realistically speaking, vendors who know how to market their goods to specifiers will get specified more often. Gifts are one method of advertising and marketing; but personally, the affect their gifts have on me are far less than the obligation of loyalty I feel towards vendors with whom I have struck up friendships. If my office was to forbid all gifts on the grounds that they could influence my specs, then they would also have to forbid all my associations with vendors in any way including visits with them at CSI meetings, lunch-n-learns, or office visits, or even e-mails and mailings. Every marketing activity could affect my desire to specify them. My point here is that such a policy towards gifts makes little sense and (if perception really is reality) is more motivated by jealousy than ethics. The perception to me is that the office Principals just dont want their lowly specifiers getting any privileges that they dont get.
The notion of perception is reality isnt really applicable in my case, and I suspect it isnt applicable in most specifiers cases. No one seems to perceive anything that I do let alone perceive what gifts I get. No one knows what is given to me or from whom I received it. The odds that some competing vendor or Owner will find out that I received a gift are next to nothing. So, it is squinting at gnats to even call it a problem.
I believe the best policy is simply one of moderation. If a vendor is offering you something that far exceeds what competitors are offering or that exceeds what smaller manufacturers would be able to offer, it might be wise to reconsider accepting it. But if we go to extremes and reject all gifts or assign arbitrary monetary limits, we are merely resisting accepted marketing strategies, thus forcing vendors to find less desirable ways to get out attention.