3 ms·

This type of thing isn't all that uncommon in municipal purchasing; the Microsoft-centric spec or the lawsuit. Our startup does a lot of business with city, cou

This type of thing isn't all that uncommon in municipal purchasing; the Microsoft-centric spec or the lawsuit. Our startup does a lot of business with city, county, and state governments in the purchasing space. I can't tell you how many times we receive a spec that is written to fit a specific product from a specific vendor. It's the latter part that gets them in trouble. Our product relies on a competitive bidding environment with multiple qualified vendors, so we do a lot of specification consulting. This usually means working with managers to pound department heads over the skull with the changes for a few days before they cave in and allow the changes. This happens in the private sector as well, but no one can sue if they aren't allowed in the bid, so the incentive isn't as strong. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the government employees in these situations. Imagine you have a staff full of people with a specific skill set -- a bunch of MCSEs, for example -- yet the law says you must write your specifications in such a way that any vendor can answer the RFP. What are you supposed to do with your team? There is often, but not always, a change management factor applied to bidders where significant changes are required, but managers don't always accept these facts. They don't understand, for example, why the guy who was trained to fix John Deer tractors can't readily switch to servicing a fleet of Kubota tractors without taking technical courses on the new product and changing out some tooling. These things cost money that may not be made up by a short term savings on capital expenditure. The problem is, "that's the next guy's problem". I just hope that the result of this lawsuit is what's good for the US Government, not just what's good for Google.

forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
"They don't understand, for example, why the guy who was trained to fix John Deer tractors can't readily switch to servicing a fleet of Kubota tractors without taking technical courses on the new product and changing out some tooling. These things cost money that may not be made up by a short term savings on capital expenditure." They do understand, that is the reason for standards that you could enforce as a mayor customer, if not on all your operations, in your primary ones. It cost a lot of money to depend on just only one company that knows you can't change to their competence(monopoly cost), too.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  Standards don't solve everything. There is always a change management component, and nothing is free. To use the tractor example, Kubota may offer to provide tooling and training for "free", but they're not eating the cost. It's built in to their price. Say they still come in at a price lower than the incumbent. There are still going to be unforeseen variables. I'm not saying the incumbent should always win. Far from it. We've bult a business on disrupting that exact scenario, but you'll find that your customer relationships are short lived if you treat vendors as universally interchangeable cogs. You have to listen carefully to the vendors and the stakeholders inside the purchasing organization, and make sure you hold the challenger accountable for their promises.
SRSimko 16y ago
While I see your logic and I'm sure you are spot on, it doesn't mean it's right. All of what you say is probably a good reason why companies take advantage of the government. Not saying yours does but we've all heard the crazy military purchase stories.
trop 16y ago
Anecdotally (from a government scientist), when hiring individuals for gov't work, if you know a good candidate, you write the job description for the candidate. This is because all hires (to avoid nepotism) go through a central office, which works with a checklist of qualifications from the job description. It could be that when writing a RFQ that there is a similar method: one decides first what product/team you want, then write the RFQ to match that product/team. Not that that excuses the gov't just that it's a standard way to game the system.
- Tangurena 16y ago
  Folks do try this, but since government hiring goes through the Office of Personnel Management (that is the "central office" you were referring to), they find that there are far more folks who meet these specs than they think. Especially once the veteran preference gets added into the mix. I work part-time with the department of interior, and they've tried writing job specs like this, and the person they wanted to hire has never made it through OPM. > It could be that when writing a RFQ that there is a similar method: one decides first what product/team you want, then write the RFQ to match that product/team. This is done all the time in private industry as well. "Politics" isn't limited just to governments.
cabalamat 16y ago
> I just hope that the result of this lawsuit is what's good for the US Government, not just what's good for Google. Indeed. But is it good for the US government (or any other IT user) to lock themselves in to one supplier? Probably not.

forgottenpaswrd 16y ago

"They don't understand, for example, why the guy who was trained to fix John Deer tractors can't readily switch to servicing a fleet of Kubota tractors without taking technical courses on the new product and changing out some tooling. These things cost money that may not be made up by a short term savings on capital expenditure." They do understand, that is the reason for standards that you could enforce as a mayor customer, if not on all your operations, in your primary ones. It cost a lot of money to depend on just only one company that knows you can't change to their competence(monopoly cost), too.

bradleyland 16y ago
Standards don't solve everything. There is always a change management component, and nothing is free. To use the tractor example, Kubota may offer to provide tooling and training for "free", but they're not eating the cost. It's built in to their price. Say they still come in at a price lower than the incumbent. There are still going to be unforeseen variables. I'm not saying the incumbent should always win. Far from it. We've bult a business on disrupting that exact scenario, but you'll find that your customer relationships are short lived if you treat vendors as universally interchangeable cogs. You have to listen carefully to the vendors and the stakeholders inside the purchasing organization, and make sure you hold the challenger accountable for their promises.

SRSimko 16y ago

While I see your logic and I'm sure you are spot on, it doesn't mean it's right. All of what you say is probably a good reason why companies take advantage of the government. Not saying yours does but we've all heard the crazy military purchase stories.

trop 16y ago

Anecdotally (from a government scientist), when hiring individuals for gov't work, if you know a good candidate, you write the job description for the candidate. This is because all hires (to avoid nepotism) go through a central office, which works with a checklist of qualifications from the job description. It could be that when writing a RFQ that there is a similar method: one decides first what product/team you want, then write the RFQ to match that product/team. Not that that excuses the gov't just that it's a standard way to game the system.

Tangurena 16y ago
Folks do try this, but since government hiring goes through the Office of Personnel Management (that is the "central office" you were referring to), they find that there are far more folks who meet these specs than they think. Especially once the veteran preference gets added into the mix. I work part-time with the department of interior, and they've tried writing job specs like this, and the person they wanted to hire has never made it through OPM. > It could be that when writing a RFQ that there is a similar method: one decides first what product/team you want, then write the RFQ to match that product/team. This is done all the time in private industry as well. "Politics" isn't limited just to governments.

cabalamat 16y ago

> I just hope that the result of this lawsuit is what's good for the US Government, not just what's good for Google. Indeed. But is it good for the US government (or any other IT user) to lock themselves in to one supplier? Probably not.