Slashdot Mirror
Public Procurement and Open Source
Steve writes "Open code in public procurement is an interesting take on free software and open source software in a federal or state environment. Pawlo: 'It is time that public bodies and governments look over their public procurement policies. The policy should guarantee competition, not stifle it.' Thinking of the latest Bill Gates rant this make sense."
As somebody who works in procurment from time to time, I can say that open source work is'nt something that is too appealing.
Basically, it comes down to accountability. When the RFP responses come back, the government agency needs to see that there is a clearly defined orginization that it can access to resolve issues. If they see 'free' or 'open source', red flags will go up. "You mean anyone can change this? No thanks"
It's a standard way of thinking for government agencies. They will never adopt open source unless it first becomes general practice in the commerical sector.
The Internet is generally stupid
amazing what the theoritical technological powers of this world (i.e. microsoft w/ bill gates) can impress upon the business world as a whole.
ensure competition ?
The FSF, EFF and associated bodies just want to lobby open software into federal institution. This in fact avoids open competition because the software is choosen by political considerations not by qualitative ones. Competition has nothing do to with the question wether to use open software or not, but with the terms how these decisions are made.
So dragging the open vs. close software issue in is rather ridiculous.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Its true. Mostly. People in Procurement generaly have some idea as to what it is their job is about, and some idea about the items they need to buy. Sure, anyone can buy trash bags and styrofoam cups, but you expect them to pick an open-source package over, say, a Microsoft package?
Its not very likely to happen, mostly because of the FUD factor, and that, IMHO, Microsoft is a "sure thing" at least in terms of keeping their jobs. For example, choosing Windows over Linux -- the buyer knows Microsoft will be around tomorrow, and thats what everyone knows, so damnit, if it costs more and its insecure, its what people want and expect. Except the people "in the know."
It comes down to the people who need the software to sit down and convince the buyers why this or that open source package is comparable, if not superior.
I've worked in government at the local and national level doing data entry among other things. Now listen you open source die hards, the people who would be using the cheap open source software you tout so much actually need the uniformity and technical commonality that microsoft provides.
The typical government computer user can barely use basic microsoft products. And before you counter with "well linux is easier" remember the computer background that most of these people have. A home pc for checking email and that's about it.
When open source can offer some real compatablility and uniformity then maybe using it in government applications can be feasable. Right now, it is not even on the table
Thank you Dave Raggett
It seems that this is "merely" a matter of enforcing existing standards. But then, I am not a bureaucrat.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You're absolutly right. If a government agency is smart enough, they get the services of a project management firm (I should say this is what my company does). A PM firm will basically act as a member of the agency's staff through all phases of the project, including, and espicaly, procurment.
On the data side, we like to set standards. Often we will get this: "I want X software, or I want X hardware." In my state, this is illegal (but this happens all the time). We are careful to re-write RFPs to include the little line 'or equivilent'. This opens things up to alternitives.
But in the end, most vendors are going to accomidate the perceived wishes of the government agencies, which is pretty much the Microsoft/Office solution. Open source might be better, but it's a wild card that most government orginizations ar'nt willing to consider.
The Internet is generally stupid
Everybody here seems to be so in love with "competition".
Noone competes for competition's sake people !
Maybe on a game server, but not in the business world !
If I compete, I want to win, that is I want to put an end to the competition so I can profit undisturbed with highest margin possible.
I admire Microsoft for realizing a monopoly, killing competition and getting away with it !
It must be a cool feeling, that after all these trials and findings of your dirty tactics, there are still customers who happily bend over and buy your crap.
M$ Propaganda
Of all things, why this here? If my company wrote something that would be sold to a government agency (say, our lovely Michigan) the *last* thing I'd want to do is GPL it, because there's another potential 49 states that could use the same software. If it's GPL'd, there'd be nothing to stop Michigan from reselling it to the other 49 states, cutting us out.
Does everyone's brain turn off the moment the letters GPL are typed together?
creation science book
...and that's exactly where OpenSource is weak, let's face it.
OpenSource is not allways that easy to install and use and interoperable as Microsoft product are. Support is not as well available. If we think in terms of competition on the desktop, OpenSource falls flat on the belly.
This is not something, which can be fixed by speeches. We need to cooperate and coordinate better, we need to have better interoperability with de facto standards (and isn't any standard a de facto standard?).
What the government can (and should) do, is to take care, that the interface definitions are open and without patents or copyrights. That's it's typical role. Everything else is up to us.
Windows-Interfaces should be open and public - all of them.
File formats of Word, Excel, Power Point etc. should be open and public.
I think, it's time to come out of the religious-like discussion and go for competition. We have the pole position in the server market and a very good base in the schools and universities - next areas to tackle will be desktop and then quality, documentation and support.
Geee, an OpenSource AG!!! With Linus for core development, Taco for press relations and me as janitor!
My personal experience as a software sales rep is quite the opposite. Procurement has NO IDEA what they're buying. They're there to make sure they get the best price for it. Procurement officers are responsible for reporting, not blindly paying more. If it's the project manager that requests Open Souce, open source is what they get. Only question for procurement is where from, and how to get it at the best possible price (out to tenor is a popular phrase. The REAL people who need to be marketed to are the project managers. They need to see outstanding stability and functionality out of the box vs the status quo OS. Then you'll see more Open Source being Procured. Remember, procurement officers have no say whether something is purchased or not. That's Finance's job.
- Yo Grark
Who to purchase from...RedHat, BestBuy, a local Reseller....what do you mean this is free software? How can we spend taxes blindly if we use free software?!?
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Those participating in the blackout should not be moderating. Did you notice the quote of the day at the bottom: Are we on STRIKE yet?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Look at the license of the BSD's, this is what software developed with public money should be released as.
The TCP/IP stack, which has been adopted by just about everyone, to great benefit is the prime example.
The GPL folks can use the BSD code, as can MS, and the rest of the commercial world. If the taxpayers have paid for the developement of the code, it should be free across the board from there, as its paid for.
After doing some intensive research, we found a package that satisfied our current and future needs. Top of the line dual processors, maxed-out memory, dual RAID controllers, the fastest harddrives, etc, at quite a nice price
So we write up the paperwork and send it off to the procurement folks. About 9 weeks later (this is considered blindingly quick in the federal govt) The boxes finally arrive. Upon opening them, however, we discover these aren't the systems we requested. They had less memory, and more importantly, no RAID nor harddrives. We contact Procurement to let them know there has been an error. A week later, they call us back to inform us that there was *no error*. It turns out they took our request, and duplicating our effort, researched what was available. Taking it in their hands to decide what was best for us, they found and ordered these 'comparable systems'. Total savings: $39 per server.
Long story short, we had to purchase everything else we needed seperately. Your tax dollars at work...
The procurement system in the government has long been known to be broken. It's a system that was designed for the industrial age to acquire massive quantities of commodity goods. Applying this obsolete system in the 'Information Age' betrays its shortfalls:
- Beaureucratic documentation and approval processes that adds no value. What they succeed in is adding weeks and months (and sometimes years) to the procurement cycle.
- This system inherently favors large corporations over any other source. Instead of overhauling the process, the government tinkers with legislative band-aids such as small and minority business requirements
- By design, the people with the knowledge to make intelligent purchase decisions are not allowed to make the purchases!
The problem is that no one with any real influence has a true desire to fix it. While elected leaders decry waste and inefficiency, most of those wasted dollars is spent in someone's district. The beaureucracy doesn't want to change the system since it creates jobs which are a nightmare to eliminate. Lastly, the system creates a strong 'profit motive' for large business to work with the governent since inflated purchase prices go directly towards the bottomline.In the end it's just another means of creating pork, only much more difficult to see
Hi,
Peruvian Congressman Villanueva has proposed this law (in Spanish. Use the Fish) that will change the way Peru buys its software. The origin of the Law and it's "travel" within the Peruvian Congress is in this timetable
Congressman Villanueva's Law will ask for any software to be bought by the Government of Peru to provide data in open formats. It will also ask for the source code and the hability to modify the code, to adapt it to the necessities of the Peruvian Republic.
The idea behind this is (liberal translation from Spanish):
"We, the Governemnt, cannot allow any company -foreing or domestic- to ship software that can hide spyware. We, the Government, cannot allow a private company to own the data that belongs to the People of Peru. We, the Government, have special needs and obligations: provide the best 'bung for the buck', allow any Peruvian to audit the source code of our applications to make sure there's nothing hidden that endangers Peru, and to make sure that the data is available even if we change the software supplier. Any software that do not abides by this law will not be used by any Peruvian Government agency".
Also, check what Microsoft Peru had to say about it. And what Congressman Villanueva answered to them.
Go, Peru!
Thinking of the latest Bill Gates rant this makes sense.
Right idea, but reversed.
It's more like... thinking about this, the latest Bill Gates rant makes sense. The last thing billg wants is for the broader public interest in licensing terms to become a public procurement policy question. His rant was a response to the threat of discussions like this, not the other way around.
One of the ways to spreading the use of open source is volunteer your time with non-profit organization that needs technical help. For example in Atlanta GA, there Georgia Center for Nonprofits.
In my experience, the purchasing process itself discourages open source software. This isn't through malice, and it isn't even necessarily that management needs someone they can make responsible for problems. It's more of side-effect of the rules established to ensure open and fair use of public money. Other jurisdictions have their own rules with their own quirks, but I'll bet a lot of my experiences are common to others.
For example, in order to be invited to submit a proposal, the vendor usually needs to be on the state's vendor list. The state requires this to be sure that vendors are qualified and legitimate - they don't want some bureacrat's buddy to hijack a bid through inside information. To get on the vendor list, a company must usually approach the state and provide qualification documentation. Large companies have sales and marketing groups that seek opportunities like this. They follow up with whatever is necessary to become a qualified vendor, just for the potential chance to be approached and asked for a bid someday. Open source interests don't have the resources to do this on a wide scale.
Another obstacle for open source is the proposal process itself. When we issued an RFP (Request for Proposal), we typically provided dozens of pages of requirements and specifications. To ensure a level playing field for all vendors, every vendor had to provide a response for every one of our requirements, and every vendor had to rigidly follow every rule: deadlines, format of response, number of copies, and often some sort of up-front money as a performance bond.
As you can guess, responding to an RFP can be expensive. You can't just mail in a brochure with a price list. A compliant response routinely required 50 to 100 pages of information. A response to a major RFP might contain two or three binders full of information, much of it custom-written to answer our specific questions. Even worse, we required that the vendor submit one complete copy for each person on the procurement committee, as many as ten or twelve copies (up to 36 binders total). In other words, responses came in boxes, not envelopes. That's a lot of up-front expense for a slim chance of giving away software.
Other hurdles included mandatory in-person vendor conferences for each RFP, extensive reference requirements, contractual and legal requirements for vendors (are open-source interests prepared to certify EEO, ADA, OSHA, etc. compliance?), and on and on. In short, a massive bureaucracy of rules, regulations, and requirements, all enforced to make sure that the government agency can document that their public dollars are spent fairly and effectively.
The paradox, of course, is that this process is so burdensome, it actually only rarely results in effective use of money. Even worse, because the process is so convoluted, it is more ripe for abuse by insiders who know how to play the game.
The good news is that it is possible to bring open source software into government. The whole procurement mess only takes over when you try to buy products. If someone within the organization takes the initiative to make a decision, to select, download, and implement "free" (as in beer) software, there is no purchase, so there's no purchasing process. For example, while I worked in government, I brought in sendmail and Elm for our e-mail system. (I also had a lot of fun with Nethack, but that's another story.)
If you want to use open-source software in your agency, your best bet is to just do it. The formal purchasing process is heavily slanted towards expensive products from large companies with deep pockets. Your only other hope is getting someone like IBM to propose the open-source software as part of a package of hardware and services.
Your points about UNIX are taken i guess, but the point of my comment is that the ordinary government user will have difficulty using OS/software that isn't like the one on their home PC that they use to write their resume or check espn.com. The majority of the population does not know what UNIX is let alone how to use it. That's the main reason the gov't can't switch to something like UNIX.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Believe it or not, the following announcement [in italian] from a branch of the italian government asking for system administration / OS software explicitly says they are not interested in open source products.
No comment.
Yes, idiots second-guessing you are annoying, and this even happens in the private sector -- it's happened to me -- but you have to understand why this second step is needed. Say your brother Joe owned a computer store. What would stop you from putting in requests for Joe's servers at inflated prices?
We ended up NOT responding to an RFP recently precisely because it was too expensive to do so. Part of our response would have been the inclusion and customization of GPL and other open source software, but the RFP seemed to discourage that.
:)
It also seemed to discourage critical reading.
Here's a sample of some questions which needed addressing (keep in mind that the RFP was really designed to get services out of people, because regardless of what anyone was saying, *everything* needed to be customized):
Question #4
What OS does your product run on?
Question #15
What operating systems do you support?
Question #23
We require products to run on NT and/or AIX.
The last question there wasn't even a *QUESTION* - it was a statement. This was a rather large organization, and to not even be able to write a coherent document spoke volumes about the potential crap we'd have had to dealt with. I felt like replying that yes, our product runs on NT (3.51) just to get a reaction, but I doubt it would have been received well.
creation science book
I read that article, and got very scared - I've just bought a new 52x CD ROM, and apparently this'll make my AOL disc explode!!!!!
So I glued the CD to a small dinner plate to strengthen it, but it wouldn't fit in my drive until I hammered it in.
But this didn't work anyway (it wouldn't read the damned CD, and I put in in the right way up and everything), and now my CD drive is broken. Don't buy 52x CD ROMs, they're dangerous!
They have computers, and they may have other weapons of mass destruction.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Too bad, especially since Microsoft Office hadn't really taken over the world - Word was popular, but so was Word Perfect, and both were relatively ugly and usually character-based WYSIWYG rather than fully GUI-based.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
In the case of the Federal Government, the Website http://www.fedbizops.gov/ is an archiac maze of half understandable requests for bids, which require a decent project manager to target and follow up on. It might take 2 people nearly full time to navigate this sites IT requests and to follow these up. Is it possible for Free Software groups to actually work through this process? Why yes. But it's a lot of work, and it must be initially done without pay. LUGS would need to organize to hammer on this. And that's the rub, Free Software users are essentially lazy unless a project stimulates them.
In addition, Free Software leadership seems to be uninterested in the economic interests of Free Software users. They seem to believe that if anything other than 'Freedom' is motivation to work with software that it undermines the movement. I hope that someone can begin the process of showing the FSF, and other groups that you must look after the economic interests of Free Software users if you are to protect and guarantee the 'Freedom' that Free Software is to guarantee. If people are to be enabled and Free to use Free Software, then they MUST have REASONABLE choices and opportunity to opt for using Free Software, and that means the WORK MUST BE DONE, and the economic benefits must be properly doled out to supporters in the trenches of the Free Software movement.
With NYLXS in New York, we are desperately trying to address these issues, and in fact, the paper, "The Path from Here" is written to largely address this issue and rally the troops. Let's all hope that we NYLXS and tohers succeed in their efforts, and that Free Software can become truly unshackled and the economic engine it's founders envisioned
Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
From my limited familiarity with government contracting, I know that being found to have violated certain laws can cause a vendor to cease to be qualified to be a government contractor. Does anyone know whether the MS antitrust charges have had any impact on MS' status as a qualified government contractor (U.S. federal, state or foreign), or whether any actions have been taken to permit them to qualify despite the antitrust charges?