Slashdot Mirror
Google Sues US Gov't For Only Considering Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "Late last week, Google sued the US government for putting out a Request For Quotation for the messaging needs of the Department of the Interior that specified only Microsoft solutions would be considered. Google apparently had spent plenty of time talking to DOI officials to understand their needs and make sure they had a solution ready to go — and were promised that there wasn't a deal already in place with Microsoft. And then the RFQ came out. Google protested, but the protest was dismissed, with the claim that Google was 'not an interested party.'"
It's one of those bureaucratic loopholes. Without the GSA schedule and number, you can be dismissed from any offering regardless of how much time you put in. Did they really not have one? Almost seems like a bad oversight.
Honestly though, even if they did can they really think that suing the gov't over some minor app is going to win tons of dollars and contracts? Every spec can be written in the future in such a way to exclude a companies abilities ad infinitum.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
It is pretty amusing, because I have repeatedly seen government (and corporate) IT talk about avoiding Macs because they are a Single Source Solution: you can't buy Macs from anyone but Apple, so you are locked into dealing with only one vendor. Then these same people would turn around and specify Microsoft Windows solutions. Precisely how many vendors do they think make Microsoft Windows?
If any of these people were honestly interested in avoiding vendor lock-in, they would require that all solutions be free and open source software. And preferably "open source hardware," if there actually can be said to be such a thing.
I couldn't visualize it from the description, but this video shows how it works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UesbkO3NvoY
Pretty crazy. It'll come down to whether they can actually make something like that reliable.
They were corrupt under Reagan, Bush and Clinton too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Kempthorne for one.
A lot of discussion on "How come only Microsoft".
While I agree it's not "competitive", I think they are looking for bids on hosting a Microsoft based solution - not Microsoft, the company, providing the hosting
They aren’t restricting the bidding to only Microsoft... third-party contractors could bid on it as long as they were going to use Microsoft’s products.
Basically, they’re trying to avoid taking the low bid and then at the end of the contract finding out that all of the workstations are running some free flavour of Linux that isn’t supported and none of their employees know how to use. It’s reasonable from that perspective, although cutting Google out of the mix probably still wasn’t really the smartest move.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
It depends. A perfectly reasonable RFP could include things that only lead to one technology being considered. For instance I have a VMWare cluster that uses Intel 5500 and 5600 CPU's, if I needed additional capacity without impacting my existing cluster I could write and RFP that stated that Intel 5500 and above parts which work with VMWare EVC (function masking) with my existing cluster be used. This would specify that Intel CPU's be used but would allow bidding from Dell, HP, Cisco, IBM, and Oracle and their resellers. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with such an RFP, but then I work in the private sector where picking the best technology for our needs is not only legal but often mandatory.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Mostly weapons systems:
http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2010/04/07/Contract-countdown.aspx?Page=1
You left out a lot:
Zimbra
Zafara
OpenXchange(that one I know sucks)
Scalix
the list goes on and on.
You write up an RFP when you know your problem and you need a solution. Language often specifies a technology, but allows for equivalent substitutions. Protests often happen over debate of what qualifies as equivalent, but if the DOI was looking for a solution, they would write an RFP.
But they weren't looking for a solution, they were looking for a vendor, and already knew what solution they wanted. That's when you write an RFQ, specify exactly the technology you want and then let everyone submit pricing. The disadvantage is that you have to choose the low quotation. In an RFP, you do not have to take the low proposal, even in the public sector.
So it might feel wrong, but way before the RFQ was even written the DOI determined that they wanted the Microsoft solution and just wanted pricing. Google lost before it even started. Which is probably short sighted by the DOI, but well within the law. As a public sector person who deals with this, it's not easy to get what you know you need at a price you want. Most public entities aren't being corrupt, but like someone else mentioned, the spirit of the law has long been lost and both sides spend inordinate amounts of time and money just trying to game the system. Like the vendor who protested that his 7200rpm SATA drive SAN was equivalent to the 15k SAS version and that he won on price... ugh.
Good lord. You're mounting an argument by citing serial liar Andrew Breitbart and the right-wing Washington Examiner?
I was very surprised, though, to see that once they started using it, some of the people who had been the most doubtful, became the biggest advocates of the Gmail way. It's dramatic enough that if we wanted to go back to Exchange or Outlook or Entourage, there would be blood, and the execs, not IT, would be the ones protesting the loudest.
Once you do an honest cost/benefit analysis of (paid-for, corporate) Google mail, it's not a hard sell at all. The problem, if it is one, is persuading decision makers to actually be honest and disinterested in their analysis. That's often much, much more difficult than it should be.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
All kinds of people enjoy waste and freewheeling. Government money is the largest source. But boss, compnay, NGO and even family money gets abused all the time too. There is really only one place for decency or lack thereof. In minds are hearts. And only one way to really reduce it from there, education. Prosecution makes people think twice sometimes, but doesn't really change who they are. Legislation and lawsuits and punishment just create even more social confusion, just visit some courts and lawsuits and you will see it offerts no real decency and solutions to society.
An article recently discussed on schneier's blog (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/control_fraud.html) argues otherwise... That under-deterrence creates an environment where corruption can become systemic and that regulatory frameworks need to be designed keeping in mind the possibility of fraud at the highest levels, and optimized to reduce it, rather than be designed based on economic models that wish corruption away as a market inefficiency that is somehow automagically eliminated by free market forces.