5 ms·

> So for this to pay off as a business over being done inhouse, does make you wonder and try to work out why that is. "inhouse" is probably still a no-bid budd

> So for this to pay off as a business over being done inhouse, does make you wonder and try to work out why that is. "inhouse" is probably still a no-bid buddy contract with a large defense corporation, so his rate probably doesn't even need to be very low at all

Zenst 7y ago
That certainly would of played a part and in bidding for the contract the military may of needed 3 quotes. So h usual suspects quote, large amount as case of if they accept, then we can afford to just do it and still cheese happy, if not, no investment beyond a fat large quote. So only takes one serious player to do a quote more realistic and yet profitable and they are up and running. So even without any buddy buddy contract factors, the whole bidding process and list of approved suppliers and viable suppliers would of seen the usual suspects asked to tender no matter what. Now any new party actively seeking that type of work in a new field like this would if anything be more at risk of underquoting compared to the other tenders. So be interesting if those tenders for this contract was known. Certainly be very insightful into this whole process. As it is not how this company won the contract, it's how the others lost it and I dare say, quotes so large that if taken, be impossible to lose money and if not, no investment lost. Take it or leave it type quotes though will often play out in many contracts and with that, make any quote realistic (even too realistic) stick out. Hence known people who will always pick the middle quote if down to personal choice. Business, gets down to the lowest and some various degrees of vetting if that company can do what they see, varying from none down to proven track record and some serious auditing. Hence the usual suspects quoting for many things plays out as track record and vetting and auditing done already.
- Grakel 7y ago
  "Would have." "May have."
  - fsckboy 7y ago
    his spelling error was "would've" and "may've"
    - t0mas88 7y ago
      I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.
      - jowsie 7y ago
        I'm a brit and do it out of lazyness.
        mkl 7y ago
        How does that work? Surely deliberately typing the wrong word takes more effort?
        DoreenMichele 7y ago
        No. It takes more effort to clearly remember and apply all such distinctions. These are the sorts of mistakes typically made by native speakers for whom they sound the same and inability to remember that they are spelled differently has zero bearing on spoken fluency. It's a different skill set and a different part of the brain.
        Zenst 7y ago
        WHat may be seen as a mistake, is in many ways akin to local accents and in the UK, we have many local accents that can and do make verbal communication just as much throught with interpretation more than wording. Yet verbal accent and localisms are more accepted than the written forms. After all - how many of us have the internal verbal processing rule now that hears the word "good" when we hear the word "Bad" based around the age and maturity of the speaker? Many I suspect and that is just one of many you end up having to mentally compile into your rule list, just to communicate with people who are not yourself. Imagine a coding language that gained new verbs daily, new rules and interpretation rules that change the dynamics of those words - yes languages can be hard to keep abreast with if you try to grasp every nuance as what is correct today, is not tomorrow. Jst try reading Chaucer and then wonder how fast until what is written today is viewed as another language in years ahead, even if the same language as languages evolve and English like many move faster than we imagine. Composing words into sentences that stand the test of time, now that is a skill. However even time can be cruel on the best intentions.
rexpop 7y ago
> "inhouse" is probably still a no-bid buddy contract with a large defense corporation So... way to move the goalposts, there.

Zenst 7y ago

That certainly would of played a part and in bidding for the contract the military may of needed 3 quotes. So h usual suspects quote, large amount as case of if they accept, then we can afford to just do it and still cheese happy, if not, no investment beyond a fat large quote. So only takes one serious player to do a quote more realistic and yet profitable and they are up and running. So even without any buddy buddy contract factors, the whole bidding process and list of approved suppliers and viable suppliers would of seen the usual suspects asked to tender no matter what. Now any new party actively seeking that type of work in a new field like this would if anything be more at risk of underquoting compared to the other tenders. So be interesting if those tenders for this contract was known. Certainly be very insightful into this whole process. As it is not how this company won the contract, it's how the others lost it and I dare say, quotes so large that if taken, be impossible to lose money and if not, no investment lost. Take it or leave it type quotes though will often play out in many contracts and with that, make any quote realistic (even too realistic) stick out. Hence known people who will always pick the middle quote if down to personal choice. Business, gets down to the lowest and some various degrees of vetting if that company can do what they see, varying from none down to proven track record and some serious auditing. Hence the usual suspects quoting for many things plays out as track record and vetting and auditing done already.

Grakel 7y ago
"Would have." "May have."
- fsckboy 7y ago
  his spelling error was "would've" and "may've"
  - t0mas88 7y ago
    I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.
    - jowsie 7y ago
      I'm a brit and do it out of lazyness.
      - mkl 7y ago
        How does that work? Surely deliberately typing the wrong word takes more effort?
        DoreenMichele 7y ago
        No. It takes more effort to clearly remember and apply all such distinctions. These are the sorts of mistakes typically made by native speakers for whom they sound the same and inability to remember that they are spelled differently has zero bearing on spoken fluency. It's a different skill set and a different part of the brain.
        Zenst 7y ago
        WHat may be seen as a mistake, is in many ways akin to local accents and in the UK, we have many local accents that can and do make verbal communication just as much throught with interpretation more than wording. Yet verbal accent and localisms are more accepted than the written forms. After all - how many of us have the internal verbal processing rule now that hears the word "good" when we hear the word "Bad" based around the age and maturity of the speaker? Many I suspect and that is just one of many you end up having to mentally compile into your rule list, just to communicate with people who are not yourself. Imagine a coding language that gained new verbs daily, new rules and interpretation rules that change the dynamics of those words - yes languages can be hard to keep abreast with if you try to grasp every nuance as what is correct today, is not tomorrow. Jst try reading Chaucer and then wonder how fast until what is written today is viewed as another language in years ahead, even if the same language as languages evolve and English like many move faster than we imagine. Composing words into sentences that stand the test of time, now that is a skill. However even time can be cruel on the best intentions.

rexpop 7y ago

> "inhouse" is probably still a no-bid buddy contract with a large defense corporation So... way to move the goalposts, there.