Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:36 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Google That is without a single shred of doubt the most awesome headline I ever got to put on OSNews. This headline is so awesome I don't even need to write anything else, because it would just detract from the awesomeness. Cue Johnny Guitar, with a lone wanderer riding his horse towards a Mojave sunset, after just having... Wait, where were we? Right. Yes, Google has sued the US Department of the Interior because its Request for Quotation regarding a messaging solution demanded the use of Microsoft software.
Thread beginning with comment 448121
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Praxis
by WorknMan on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Praxis"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

These type of lawsuits seem fairly common against governments. You would think that they would learn to not list a particular company by name when letting companies bid for contracts. A competitor who you leave out always sues you.


And it begs the question... would they have to try every single vendor option before deciding on one of them? I mean, if there were five different offerings for whatever software package they were looking at, if they tried the first three and decided that the 3rd one had everything they needed, would they get sued for not trying the last two?

Edited 2010-11-02 00:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Praxis
by Delgarde on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by Praxis"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

And it begs the question... would they have to try every single vendor option before deciding on one of them? I mean, if there were five different offerings for whatever software package they were looking at, if they tried the first three and decided that the 3rd one had everything they needed, would they get sued for not trying the last two?


Almost certainly, since the last two might also provide everything they need, for half the price. In which case not only would the last two vendors have reasonable grounds to claim a biased process, but you'd end up with complaints over misuse of tax funding.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Praxis
by Neolander on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 07:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Praxis"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And it begs the question... would they have to try every single vendor option before deciding on one of them? I mean, if there were five different offerings for whatever software package they were looking at, if they tried the first three and decided that the 3rd one had everything they needed, would they get sued for not trying the last two?

Almost certainly, since the last two might also provide everything they need, for half the price. In which case not only would the last two vendors have reasonable grounds to claim a biased process, but you'd end up with complaints over misuse of tax funding.

Exactly. When you're making government-wide contracts that involve 10.000 software licenses, you *really* have the time to test all of the five available before and consider the costs and the benefits very carefully, because involving that amount of people to use the same software for a long time should not be done lightly (and preferably not favor big monopolies either).

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Praxis
by ricegf on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 03:11 in reply to "RE: Comment by Praxis"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Um, why not write the RFP to specify the functions needed, and then only evaluate the software packages that are proposed to meet the RFP?

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I understand government and military purchasing is very similar. Why not write more generic requirnments? Because someone with decision making authority likes the Microsoft brand and has decided that on a solution that can work with their own pet project can be considered.

I've heard tell of military projects get to the point of beta test user. A officer change brings in a new figurehead that likes Microsoft and suddenly the previous and nearly complete project is scrapped to support some officer's brand preferences.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Praxis
by mabhatter on Sat 6th Nov 2010 05:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by Praxis"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

the point is that they essentially specified "implementers" of the Microsoft solution... they were bidding for implementations, not the actual software. This is how they get their toe-hold. At some point the government will want it's big contractors involved.. and there will be no "open" implementation because that would be "unfair" to Microsoft's "property" rights.

After that Microsoft will "alter the deal..." the goal is not to hold up the government, but all the people that have to CONNECT to the government with the mandated software.

Reply Parent Score: 2