Here's a story:
In 1992, Mr. and Mrs. Smith wanted to purchase a house. They found three that they liked, and had to make a hard decision.
House #1 was the largest. It was a brand new home designed in a very modern style, with lots of windows. It was in the middle of the block and had only one tree on the property. But it had ample space for all their family's needs, and some room to grow.
House #2 was the smallest of the three, a very plain stucco and wood structure more than 300 square feet smaller than House #1. But it was situated on a corner lot (which the real estate agent swore would increase its resale value), with a large finished patio and more than enough space to put in a swimming pool (one of Bill Smith's dream features), when they could afford it.
House #3 was somewhere between the other two in size; it had enough room for now but not for growth. The house was a kind of non-descript structure of no specific style, looking pretty much like all its neighbors on the block. A typical tract home. It was also the cheapest of the three; the savings would be enough to enable the Smiths to replace some furniture and upgrade finishes.
It was a hard decision. Jeanne Smith asked her parents what they thought. Her dad said, "Great is never cheap and cheap is never great."
Bill asked what he meant, and dad answered, "Just because something costs less doesn't mean it's any good, much less better. This house may be affordable right now, but it could be something you can't resell later."
They asked their friend what he thought. Hank said, "If you're worried about resale value, you can always add upgrades later on. You can look at the market, see what upgrades really add value and do them before you put the house on the market."
So they chose house #3.
By 2000, the house was feeling a bit crowded; they wondered if "cheap" had been the good choice after all. So they shortened the driveway, added a covered carport and turned the garage into a family room, convinced that the second living space would recoup its cost later on.
Toward the end of 2007, they were finally ready for a swimming pool, when the recession hit and the economy tanked. Over the next few years, their house lost almost half its value, which put them upside-down on their mortgage. They were stuck in that house.
A few years later, the house had regained its original value, but there was no profit to be made in a resale because of the upgrades they had made. They were still stuck in that house, and feeling worse and worse about it as time passed.
In 2014, Jeanne and Bill both got big raises. Jeanne wanted less house to care for, and they decided they could finally afford to break even and move on. Which they did, finding a small house that they liked, that they could easily afford. They closed on both houses the same day and moved. But they had both learned an important lesson. As Ben Franklin said:
"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."
These same lessons can also apply to procuring architectural, engineering and related services. Lowest-bid architecture, engineering and other services often lead to foundations that crack or move, resulting in structures that fall down and hurt people (or worse). And the ensuing lawsuits are never cheap.