5 ms·
I'm the author of the blog post, but the claim of success is based on a number of factors other than the $1. As we note re the $1: > "This unexpected developm
by vdavez 11y ago
I'm the author of the blog post, but the claim of success is based on a number of factors other than the $1.
As we note re the $1:
> "This unexpected development will no doubt force us to rethink some of our assumptions about the reverse-auction model."
Also, the success is borne out of the data:
> "Given these statistics, we think it’s fair to say that there is a market for open-source micro-purchasing, though we obviously will need to spend some time and effort refining our methods.
The success is in validation of the idea, not the actual result in this case. That said, the result is new, functional open-source software for the American public. So that's still a pretty good outcome.
- richard_mcp 11y agoIf you don't mind me asking, do you have any plans to prevent extremely small bids like this in the future?
- brianmurphy 11y agoI hope they don't. In fact, I hope they encourage these kinds of small bids from qualified individuals. 100% test case coverage for $1 is amazing and to the benefit of all taxpayers.
- richard_mcp 11y agoI think they're great too. I'm just curious what 18f thinks about them.
- cjoh 11y agoWhat happens when the company that won tries to get on schedule 70, and are negotiated to contract to government for some fraction of a dollar? It sounds preposterous, but government has done more preposterous things in this sector.
- rahimnathwani 11y agoAre you considering allowing negative bids in future, as suggested by MichaelGG above?