I disagree! It depends on the requestor defines the need... It can be very general -- in which case "Procurement" does its job and looks for a solution that meets the lowest cost criterion.
<...>
You were the one to post a link saying :
"Turkey is one of the champions of Free software with its own GNU/Linux based operating system Pardus. Using GNU/Linux and other open source technologies helps governments and agencies cut cost and maintain control over the quality of products, something proprietary technologies such as Microsoft Windows or Apple's iOS can never give."
NB : I personnally believe this open source argument is fallacious, I am not posting this to draw the discussion on this.
There are billions of reasons for which a government may believe it is smart to use "Free Software". After all this is just software, it should be free , uh ? /s
AFAICT, the original plan promoted by the Prime Minister was for "open source" and Android. Others have posted that the original plan is/was not successful, and that Turkey now wants to buy iPads... Hence the meeting referred to in this article. This involves the President of Turkey. IDK, if the Turkish office of the Presidency is ceremonial or if he wields political power.
i am trying to determine if there is potential for Apple to win this "bid" with iPads and the relatively "closed" iOS platform.... My post was exploring some ways that might be used to win the "bid".
A good sales organization with a superior solution, will help the customer specify the requirements of a RFQ. It's done all the time!
There are billions of reasons for which a government may believe it is smart to use "Free Software". After all this is just software, it should be free , uh ? /s
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
In a prior post, I mentioned that a vendor will often assist a potential customer write the bid specs -- which usually starts with an RFQ (Request For Quotation). If the vendor has convinced the customer that it has what the customer wants, the RFQ can be written in such a way as to preclude unwanted bidders (competition). While I haven't seen the "tender" mentioned below -- it was obviously written to [try to] prevent Apple from bidding the iPad with a 9.7 inch display.
Quote:
General Mobile has won the tender for the pilot phase of the Movement to Increase Opportunities and Technology (FAT?H) project, which will enable the test trial of tablet PCs in 52 schools this February.
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
Nothing prevents an individual or an organization to develop an App (or an iBook) on iOS platform, and decide it is free ...
I am not an expert of that Faith project, and it seems difficult to evaluate, because we have contradictory messages about it (what it was, what it is going to be ... (possibly ...)). Beyond this particular project, my point was that although indeed procurement should be the more rational thing, it is frequently not, especially when it comes to public projects, subject to all kind of political interferences.
Public projects (and even Corporate projects) are such that the ones who take the purchasing decisions (the "prescribers"), are not the users. So, even if they claim they listen to their point of view, they frequently do not.
Of course Mr Couch is doing his job in this matter, I wish him good luck, but I do not think Apple has a great future in that sort of projects ....
Incidentally, this reminds me a quote from an high tech company, saying : we have two types of prospects, some are only interested in the cost, and we do not make too many efforts for them. Others (who also look at the cost, of course) also discuss about the product and what they expect from it. We appreciate those customers, they are the ones who enable us to progress ...
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
Nothing prevents an individual or an organization to develop an App (or an iBook) on iOS platform, and decide it is free ...
I am not an expert of that Faith project, and it seems difficult to evaluate, because we have contradictory messages about it (what it was, what it is going to be ... (possibly ...)). Beyond this particular project, my point was that although indeed procurement should be the more rational thing, it is frequently not, especially when it comes to public projects, subject to all kind of political interferences.
Public projects (and even Corporate projects) are such that the ones who take the purchasing decisions (the "prescribers"), are not the users. So, even if they claim they listen to their point of view, they frequently do not.
Of course Mr Couch is doing his job in this matter, I wish him good luck, but I do not think Apple has a great future in that sort of projects ....
Incidentally, this reminds me a quote from an high tech company, saying : we have two types of prospects, some are only interested in the cost, and we do not make too many efforts for them. Others (who also look at the cost, of course) also discuss about the product and what they expect from it. We appreciate those customers, they are the ones who enable us to progress ...
I agree that Apple has advantages in creating eBooks -- and could negotiate bulk iOS Developer licenses... So that would be a non-issue. The iOS ecosystem for iTunes U and Podcasts are unmatched by other vendors.
Apple does have a history of "salting" education projects dating back to at least 1980 -- donating 7 Apple ][s to Saratoga [CA] High School to set up a classroom lab.
AIR, NeXT and Apple did a lot of collaboration with Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford...
Because of his background, I believe that Tim Cook is more in concert with the needs and workings of large organizations, enterprise, education, etc. than Steve Jobs.
I see this as a great opportunity for Apple!
As to your last paragraph... To a creative sales organization there are ways to influence prospects so that your products are the lowest cost [only] solution... That's called marketing!
I think you misunderstand, Apple accidentally swapped the position of two keys on the Turkish F keyboard from where they're supposed to be. It's a bug.
I think it was deliberate. When Turkey asked for a remedy, Apple said, "Sure, we'll fix it for $4.5B."
Apple does have a history of "salting" education projects dating back to at least 1980 -- donating 7 Apple ][s to Saratoga [CA] High School to set up a classroom lab.
AIR, NeXT and Apple did a lot of collaboration with Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford...
Because of his background, I believe that Tim Cook is more in concert with the needs and workings of large organizations, enterprise, education, etc. than Steve Jobs.
<..>
True, I know. But most education institutions do not have budgets comparable to the ones you mention, you know .. (which do not prevent them from purchasing a few Macs, but only in cases where this decision is taken (mostly at a very local level) by the real users, and not by clerical guys in purchasing departments, who buy computers as they would buy paper stock, pencils ...
Anyway we have a clear indication that the Turkish authorities discuss technical issue with Apple : that keyboard ... This is a very positive indication, in that respect, I admit !
In a prior post, I mentioned that a vendor will often assist a potential customer write the bid specs -- which usually starts with an RFQ (Request For Quotation). If the vendor has convinced the customer that it has what the customer wants, the RFQ can be written in such a way as to preclude unwanted bidders (competition). While I haven't seen the "tender" mentioned below -- it was obviously written to [try to] prevent Apple from bidding the iPad with a 9.7 inch display.
Quote:
General Mobile has won the tender for the pilot phase of the Movement to Increase Opportunities and Technology (FAT?H) project, which will enable the test trial of tablet PCs in 52 schools this February.
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
A pretty ordinary set of specs... I could find no mention of pricing!
I am quoting my own post to add some clarifications.
Quote:
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
The TL 599 is the price of the tablet in Turkish Lira... About USD $.57 in March of 2012 (when the contract was awarded).
In a prior post, I mentioned that a vendor will often assist a potential customer write the bid specs -- which usually starts with an RFQ (Request For Quotation). If the vendor has convinced the customer that it has what the customer wants, the RFQ can be written in such a way as to preclude unwanted bidders (competition). While I haven't seen the "tender" mentioned below -- it was obviously written to [try to] prevent Apple from bidding the iPad with a 9.7 inch display.
A pretty ordinary set of specs... I could find no mention of pricing!
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the very fact that, as you seem to suggest, it would possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part of a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the fact that, as you suggest, it is possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part as a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
It's done all the time. I've received lots of bid requests where it's obvious one particular favored bidder assisted in in writing the bid specs.
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the very fact that, as you seem to suggest, it would possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part as a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
I see it differently. Bid specs are supposed to (in order of priority):
provide the requester the products and services he needs
assure that those products and services can be provided by the provider (bid winner)
meet or exceed the cost requirements (competitive bidding when necessary)
Turkey could have spec'd the bids for "electronic tablets" and been inundated with bids from 20 or 30 companies. Each of these bids would need to be processed and each bidder would need to be evaluated (sometimes requiring an on-site visit to their facilities, financial analysis, etc.) to assure that they could perform (deliver the products and services). The bid process, itself, can be very costly,
However, various vendors can help the requester narrow the bidding by providing addition specs. Actually, this can improve the bid process and reduce costs.
This need not be illegal or anti-competitive -- rather getting the requester what he wants at the best price.
For example, you could spec your assistant to go out and buy the cheapest tablet (no specs) and he could meet your specs by buying a totally unusable <$100 tablet -- wasting time, money and doing you a total disservice.
If your assistant came to me, I would ask him things like do you want to use it:
to read books
to watch movies
to surf the web over the cellular network (and which cellular network)
...
What I, the vendor, am doing is helping the requester understand the features available and to write the specs to better meet his needs.
Another example... You are the US Army and you want to buy 50,000 Tanks over 4 years -- along with 4x replacement parts. You could release an RFQ with no specs and everybody from Tesla to the Russians could respond...
Or you could limit the bidding to known providers like FMC Corp., Ford, etc. and assure you get what you want.
A potential provider, like FMC, would be doing a disservice to his company and his country if he did not try to assure the Army got what they needed at the best price. FMC can best assist, by helping the Army write the specs... Maybe even sole-sourcing FMC as the provider, if justified!
It's done all the time. I've received lots of bid requests where it's obvious one particular favored bidder assisted in in writing the bid specs.
I know, but this is the sort of thing you always think about, but never publicly admit .... (you would not, if you were involved ...).
Bid Specs are not perfect -- especially if the time required to prepare the specs is longer than technology advances.
In many cases you can respond to a bid with products or services that exceed the specs and/or request an exception. Today Apple could bid the iPad Mini, iPad 2 or iPad 4.
It's all done to make the process work! That's apparently what is happening with the Turkish project.
I see it differently. Bid specs are supposed to (in order of priority):
provide the requester the products and services he needs
assure that those products and services can be provided by the provider (bid winner)
meet or exceed the cost requirements (competitive bidding when necessary)
...That's the way it is supposed to work!
Of course, but I know you're not so naive as to think that's the way it always works. Not at all saying that's what occurred in this case. You know more of the details of this bid than any of the rest of us. Nice research by the way.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I disagree! It depends on the requestor defines the need... It can be very general -- in which case "Procurement" does its job and looks for a solution that meets the lowest cost criterion.
<...>
You were the one to post a link saying :
"Turkey is one of the champions of Free software with its own GNU/Linux based operating system Pardus. Using GNU/Linux and other open source technologies helps governments and agencies cut cost and maintain control over the quality of products, something proprietary technologies such as Microsoft Windows or Apple's iOS can never give."
NB : I personnally believe this open source argument is fallacious, I am not posting this to draw the discussion on this.
There are billions of reasons for which a government may believe it is smart to use "Free Software". After all this is just software, it should be free , uh ? /s
AFAICT, the original plan promoted by the Prime Minister was for "open source" and Android. Others have posted that the original plan is/was not successful, and that Turkey now wants to buy iPads... Hence the meeting referred to in this article. This involves the President of Turkey. IDK, if the Turkish office of the Presidency is ceremonial or if he wields political power.
i am trying to determine if there is potential for Apple to win this "bid" with iPads and the relatively "closed" iOS platform.... My post was exploring some ways that might be used to win the "bid".
A good sales organization with a superior solution, will help the customer specify the requirements of a RFQ. It's done all the time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
There are billions of reasons for which a government may believe it is smart to use "Free Software". After all this is just software, it should be free , uh ? /s
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
In a prior post, I mentioned that a vendor will often assist a potential customer write the bid specs -- which usually starts with an RFQ (Request For Quotation). If the vendor has convinced the customer that it has what the customer wants, the RFQ can be written in such a way as to preclude unwanted bidders (competition). While I haven't seen the "tender" mentioned below -- it was obviously written to [try to] prevent Apple from bidding the iPad with a 9.7 inch display.
Quote:
General Mobile has won the tender for the pilot phase of the Movement to Increase Opportunities and Technology (FAT?H) project, which will enable the test trial of tablet PCs in 52 schools this February.
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
http://fatihproject.com/?p=27
So, I did some surfing and found the specs of the General Mobile Tablet:
http://www.generalmobile.com/Product/e-tablet
A pretty ordinary set of specs... I could find no mention of pricing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
Nothing prevents an individual or an organization to develop an App (or an iBook) on iOS platform, and decide it is free ...
I am not an expert of that Faith project, and it seems difficult to evaluate, because we have contradictory messages about it (what it was, what it is going to be ... (possibly ...)). Beyond this particular project, my point was that although indeed procurement should be the more rational thing, it is frequently not, especially when it comes to public projects, subject to all kind of political interferences.
Public projects (and even Corporate projects) are such that the ones who take the purchasing decisions (the "prescribers"), are not the users. So, even if they claim they listen to their point of view, they frequently do not.
Of course Mr Couch is doing his job in this matter, I wish him good luck, but I do not think Apple has a great future in that sort of projects ....
Incidentally, this reminds me a quote from an high tech company, saying : we have two types of prospects, some are only interested in the cost, and we do not make too many efforts for them. Others (who also look at the cost, of course) also discuss about the product and what they expect from it. We appreciate those customers, they are the ones who enable us to progress ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It wouldn't necessarily need to be free. It would need to be adaptable enough for the Turkish educational leaders or authorities to customize the software for their own unique needs. Turkish education goals may not match those in the US where Apple has generally concentrated their educational software and books effort. I can certainly understand the Faith Project argument for involving local schools and their students in designing and integrating their own software solutions to address unique needs. iOS would not be as adaptable as Android for that, as I'm certain you would agree.
Nothing prevents an individual or an organization to develop an App (or an iBook) on iOS platform, and decide it is free ...
I am not an expert of that Faith project, and it seems difficult to evaluate, because we have contradictory messages about it (what it was, what it is going to be ... (possibly ...)). Beyond this particular project, my point was that although indeed procurement should be the more rational thing, it is frequently not, especially when it comes to public projects, subject to all kind of political interferences.
Public projects (and even Corporate projects) are such that the ones who take the purchasing decisions (the "prescribers"), are not the users. So, even if they claim they listen to their point of view, they frequently do not.
Of course Mr Couch is doing his job in this matter, I wish him good luck, but I do not think Apple has a great future in that sort of projects ....
Incidentally, this reminds me a quote from an high tech company, saying : we have two types of prospects, some are only interested in the cost, and we do not make too many efforts for them. Others (who also look at the cost, of course) also discuss about the product and what they expect from it. We appreciate those customers, they are the ones who enable us to progress ...
I agree that Apple has advantages in creating eBooks -- and could negotiate bulk iOS Developer licenses... So that would be a non-issue. The iOS ecosystem for iTunes U and Podcasts are unmatched by other vendors.
Apple does have a history of "salting" education projects dating back to at least 1980 -- donating 7 Apple ][s to Saratoga [CA] High School to set up a classroom lab.
AIR, NeXT and Apple did a lot of collaboration with Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford...
Because of his background, I believe that Tim Cook is more in concert with the needs and workings of large organizations, enterprise, education, etc. than Steve Jobs.
I see this as a great opportunity for Apple!
As to your last paragraph... To a creative sales organization there are ways to influence prospects so that your products are the lowest cost [only] solution... That's called marketing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by konqerror
I think you misunderstand, Apple accidentally swapped the position of two keys on the Turkish F keyboard from where they're supposed to be. It's a bug.
I think it was deliberate. When Turkey asked for a remedy, Apple said, "Sure, we'll fix it for $4.5B."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
<..>
Apple does have a history of "salting" education projects dating back to at least 1980 -- donating 7 Apple ][s to Saratoga [CA] High School to set up a classroom lab.
AIR, NeXT and Apple did a lot of collaboration with Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford...
Because of his background, I believe that Tim Cook is more in concert with the needs and workings of large organizations, enterprise, education, etc. than Steve Jobs.
<..>
True, I know. But most education institutions do not have budgets comparable to the ones you mention, you know .. (which do not prevent them from purchasing a few Macs, but only in cases where this decision is taken (mostly at a very local level) by the real users, and not by clerical guys in purchasing departments, who buy computers as they would buy paper stock, pencils ...
Anyway we have a clear indication that the Turkish authorities discuss technical issue with Apple : that keyboard ... This is a very positive indication, in that respect, I admit !
F-A-T-I-H. FATIH.
Not "faith"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
In a prior post, I mentioned that a vendor will often assist a potential customer write the bid specs -- which usually starts with an RFQ (Request For Quotation). If the vendor has convinced the customer that it has what the customer wants, the RFQ can be written in such a way as to preclude unwanted bidders (competition). While I haven't seen the "tender" mentioned below -- it was obviously written to [try to] prevent Apple from bidding the iPad with a 9.7 inch display.
Quote:
General Mobile has won the tender for the pilot phase of the Movement to Increase Opportunities and Technology (FAT?H) project, which will enable the test trial of tablet PCs in 52 schools this February.
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
http://fatihproject.com/?p=27
So, I did some surfing and found the specs of the General Mobile Tablet:
http://www.generalmobile.com/Product/e-tablet
A pretty ordinary set of specs... I could find no mention of pricing!
I am quoting my own post to add some clarifications.
Quote:
General Mobile and Samsung were the two bidders for the tender, which called for devices under the category of 8.9-9.5 inch tablets. General Mobile won the tender with their offer of TL 599 for each device and will hand over 4,000 of before February 6th.
The TL 599 is the price of the tablet in Turkish Lira... About USD $.57 in March of 2012 (when the contract was awarded).
https://www.google.com/search?q=turkish+currency&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
So each tablet was purchased for ~= USD $340. So, the pilot project was for 4,000 tablets @ USD $340 == $1,360,000.
Edit: Just as a matter of comparison, here's the BOM+Mfg Cost breakdown of the iPad 3 from March 2012:
It shows the iPad 3 32GB Wifi at $333.
Also, The General Mobile spec shows an external SD card up to 32 GB for storage. It is unclear if this is included (or not) and what size.
If 16 GB was included, then the iPad 2 16 GB WiFi at $245 BOM+Mfg would apply.
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the very fact that, as you seem to suggest, it would possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part of a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonMan
F-A-T-I-H. FATIH.
Not "faith"
Sorry... 73-year-old eyes
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the fact that, as you suggest, it is possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part as a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
It's done all the time. I've received lots of bid requests where it's obvious one particular favored bidder assisted in in writing the bid specs.
I know, but this is the sort of thing you always think about, but never publicly admit .... (you would not, if you were involved ...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Sorry... 73-year-old eyes
Then what are other people's excuses, especially those who have so much to say about it.
I was acting in good FAITH .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Then what are other people's excuses, especially those who have so much to say about it.
Heck I'm just following Dick's lead. He's usually right.
Thanks to PersonMan for correcting everyone's misreading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
careful that you could give some ideas to lawyers : bid specs are supposed to let competition occur, but not the opposite ....
the very fact that, as you seem to suggest, it would possible to disguise a predetermined choice into a victory as part as a fair competition battle makes me dubious about the supposedly scientific nature of procurement decisions ...
I see it differently. Bid specs are supposed to (in order of priority):
provide the requester the products and services he needs
assure that those products and services can be provided by the provider (bid winner)
meet or exceed the cost requirements (competitive bidding when necessary)
Turkey could have spec'd the bids for "electronic tablets" and been inundated with bids from 20 or 30 companies. Each of these bids would need to be processed and each bidder would need to be evaluated (sometimes requiring an on-site visit to their facilities, financial analysis, etc.) to assure that they could perform (deliver the products and services). The bid process, itself, can be very costly,
However, various vendors can help the requester narrow the bidding by providing addition specs. Actually, this can improve the bid process and reduce costs.
This need not be illegal or anti-competitive -- rather getting the requester what he wants at the best price.
For example, you could spec your assistant to go out and buy the cheapest tablet (no specs) and he could meet your specs by buying a totally unusable <$100 tablet -- wasting time, money and doing you a total disservice.
If your assistant came to me, I would ask him things like do you want to use it:
to read books
to watch movies
to surf the web over the cellular network (and which cellular network)
...
What I, the vendor, am doing is helping the requester understand the features available and to write the specs to better meet his needs.
Another example... You are the US Army and you want to buy 50,000 Tanks over 4 years -- along with 4x replacement parts. You could release an RFQ with no specs and everybody from Tesla to the Russians could respond...
Or you could limit the bidding to known providers like FMC Corp., Ford, etc. and assure you get what you want.
A potential provider, like FMC, would be doing a disservice to his company and his country if he did not try to assure the Army got what they needed at the best price. FMC can best assist, by helping the Army write the specs... Maybe even sole-sourcing FMC as the provider, if justified!
That's the way it is supposed to work!
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It's done all the time. I've received lots of bid requests where it's obvious one particular favored bidder assisted in in writing the bid specs.
I know, but this is the sort of thing you always think about, but never publicly admit .... (you would not, if you were involved ...).
Bid Specs are not perfect -- especially if the time required to prepare the specs is longer than technology advances.
In many cases you can respond to a bid with products or services that exceed the specs and/or request an exception. Today Apple could bid the iPad Mini, iPad 2 or iPad 4.
It's all done to make the process work! That's apparently what is happening with the Turkish project.
duplicate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I see it differently. Bid specs are supposed to (in order of priority):
provide the requester the products and services he needs
assure that those products and services can be provided by the provider (bid winner)
meet or exceed the cost requirements (competitive bidding when necessary)
...That's the way it is supposed to work!
Of course, but I know you're not so naive as to think that's the way it always works. Not at all saying that's what occurred in this case. You know more of the details of this bid than any of the rest of us. Nice research by the way.