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.'"

Comments

Video of how it works

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Smart Move?

[jlechem]

Verbal contracts are all well and good but unless they have a DUNS and register with the CCR, and use those to get on the schedule the DoD can pretty much give them the finger and they have no recourse. Sounds like someone at Google didn't do their homework on getting DoD jobs.

Re:Yes, the Dept. of Interior is corrupt

[Wyatt Earp]

They were corrupt under Reagan, Bush and Clinton too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Kempthorne for one.

Re:Smart Move?

[bytestorm]

A plaintiff company Onix apparently does have a GSA Schedule 70 and provides solutions based on google docs. Since they (google) are not providing the service directly, however, they shouldn't need one. According to the complaint, the companies have been courting this since june 2009, so there was plenty of time to get one if they needed it. The deal is that when the RFQ went out, it was specifically worded such that google docs were not a usable cloud platform, even though google docs is FISMA certified, which was the DOI's primary complaint to them in the first place (or so they claim in the filing).

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[afidel]

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.

Re:Smart Move?

[Zocalo]

No kidding. I'm currently working on part of the delivery of a $1b+ tender where a dimension is specified to not exceed a given length to an accuracy of 0.5mm. This is on a device that is over 5 meters in length. Gaming the list of potential bidders/suppliers? That would be unethical, and also illegal in many jurisdictions. Stating your requirements with a high degree of precision? Nothing wrong with that!

People who write these kinds of things are well aware of what they can and can't do or say and still have no problems in making sure that their preferred supplier wins the contract without breaching the letter of the law. The spirit of the law, on the other hand, was declared dead a long time ago.

Re:Eheh

[h4rr4r]

You left out a lot:
Zimbra
Zafara
OpenXchange(that one I know sucks)
Scalix
the list goes on and on.

RFP, RFQ and Public Aquisitions

[spopepro]

I was starting to reply to a bunch of comments, but figured I'd just start anew since the misunderstandings are widespread. It seems like very few here have experience with public sector RFPs and RFQs. Even if you worked for a company that has submitted responses I wouldn't be surprised if you got it wrong. We (school district) just canceled because all 10 vendors were non-responsive by not reading and answering the requirements.

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.

Re:Smart Move?

[dondelelcaro]

Gmail doesn't [support S/MIME], and it's a gaping hole in their messaging offering when compared to pretty much any popular messaging application on the market.

There are various client-side plugins which support S/MIME for Gmail (which is actually the right place to do it). See Gmail S/MIME and other similar plugins.