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.'"
So basically, your approach would be to let your direct competitor AND arch enemy get away with their corruption and greed and walk all over you for fear that they might walk all over you again with their corruption and greed.
Your message: Don't fight the status quo because if you don't things will remain the same...
Really, grow a spine, it is all the rage these days.
Asking for a MS only solution in an open bid is NOT an open bid. If I make an open bid for cars as long as they are made by ford, then it is not open. And governments should NOT do this kind of job unless they want the outraged citizens to march to the capitol and... oooh Idols is on.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
All bureaucracies are inherently corrupt, which is why you need regular change. A bureaucrat's first and primary goal is to keep their job and benefits. There is no requirement or reward to be efficient, effective, considerate or frugal. After all, it isn't their money they are spending.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Then set as one of your bidding requirements that A) no retraining be needed (outlook interfaces with google apps....) or B) retraining be included. Let the vendor find a solution to your problems; dont simply say "there is no solution and we dont want you to get into a bidding war".
Does Google's professional mail solution support S/MIME? Gmail doesn't, and it's a gaping hole in their messaging offering when compared to pretty much any popular messaging application on the market.
Disclaimer: I work for USGS/DOI.
Yes, that amongst other things. One big aspect of any federal government purchase is the requirement of encryption, and not just any encryption, but FIPS 140-2 compliant encryption systems. As far as I know, Gmail does not support that, while Exchange does.
What's more, about 1/2 the DOI has an MS Exchange-based email system, while the other have (at least the few bureaus that I know of) use a Lotus Notes-based system. So, the idea with this transition is to merge into one solution with the assumption it will be cheaper. (Will it be cheaper? Who knows...)
From what I understand, the Networx transition in DOI underwent a similar problem where the contract was awarded to the incumbent (Verizon) and this resulted in protests.
Overall I like FIPS 140-2 because it means I'm less likely to be sold a snake-oil security product, although it drives up costs inordinately. One example: I just purchased 5 2GB USB drives, for $250. The FIPS compliant price $50/unit where an off-the-shelf USB drive costs ~$8.
All things told, I would love to have a Gmail solution, but until they get FIPS 140-2 compliance, I'm stuck with MS Exchange...sad though it may be.
How many people have firm opinions that the government did something wrong here - show of hands please?
How many people know the differences between an RFQ, RFP, and an IFB? Why did so many hands go down?
Seriously, an RFQ is a tool to arrive at market price for a defined solution, and it is non-binding.
An RFP is a request for respondents to define a solution, the Gov't is open to various solutions.
And an IFB is an Invitation To Bid - this is where the Gov't picks a vendor for a defined solution based on price.
Every response i see here has these three different documents conflated... I suggest you look here for guidance:
http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
Ken
Actual machinist/toolmaker here:
"Ordinary machining techniques are good down to 0.1%"
*a dark cloud appears above my head* I'll try to bite my lip and be civil about this. .1% for a 25.4mm part is .0254mm, (1 inch, and .001 inch respectively, for SAE). Charles Babbage was able to meet that tolerance with the tools of the time - the builders of the modern Difference Engine empirically found they could indeed do so. When the Difference Engine was built using his old plans, they decided to take on the argument that Babbage couldn't possibly build his Difference Engine due to lack of technology. They found that argument to be bogus. Depending on what you're doing, that kind of tolerance these days may as well be plus or minus a mile, especially if you're sending something to be ground. With superfinishing (Supfina Inc., North Kingstown RI (my childhood hometown)) you're looking at microns or smaller.
Affordable glass scales and ballscrew retrofits have even made manual machining a lot more accurate. Drill 2 holes 500mm apart plus or minus .02 mm? All I've got is a rebuilt Bridgeport with glass scales? I've got AC that doesn't blow directly on the machine tool and shrink one side of it? NO PROBLEM.
Am I insulted? Yeah, a little bit. Bring coffee into the shop next time. Thanks.
--
BMO
l Postscript: Yesterday's thread about math made me angry, but since it was mobbed I didn't bother contributing. But I have to say this, yeah sure a lot of people go through their lives with just arithmetic, percentages, and a rough idea of area and volume. But if you want to build anything *interesting,* you'd better have paid attention to your geometry, trig, and calc teachers. Yeah, sure, computers do a lot of the bull-work calculation, but it's a good idea to have a good idea.