Slashdot Mirror
West Virgnia Auditor Finds Cisco Router Purchase Not Performed Legally
coondoggie writes "West Virginia wasted millions in federal grant money when it purchased 1,164 Cisco routers for $24 million in 2010, a state audit concluded. A report issued this month by the West Virginia Legislative Auditor found the state used a 'legally unauthorized purchasing process' when awarding the router contract, paid for with federal stimulus funds, to Cisco. The auditor also found Cisco 'showed a wanton indifference to the interests of the public' in recommending the investment in its model 3945 branch routers, the majority of which were 'oversized' for the requirements of the state agencies using them, the report (PDF) stated."
And even if something did, it's just part of the cost of doing business for both companies attached to the tit of government and those officials getting off on shoveling out other peoples' money.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There's a whole lot of room to go down in specs before you could even consider talking about "insifficiently specced gear".
It's kind of like using that argument when someone needed a shovel and got sold a truck with a plough.
In a decent world, this would get the company blacklisted for all government-funded future purchases for a certain time. Which would make company care a LOT about not fleecing the public.
Apparently you are totally unaware of the state of bridges in this country if you think our infrastructure is fine.
We've got lots of infrastructure that is falling apart. West Virginia just happens to have IT clueless folks running the place spending money where they shouldn't, and the biggest networking IT specialist around recommended something insane.
It's the same worldwide, when I worked in public sector in the UK some years back it was absolutely no different.
The companies know it too, which is why public sector contracts are seen as so lucrative most the time. This is also why I made the move to private sector, sure I miss my 38 days leave a year + 15 more through accrued flexi time and my final salary pension scheme, but ultimately I'm not working with the kind of idiots who are responsible for this sort of thing, and that's worth more than any amount of leave or pension (and besides, private sector career progression is more about talent, than how old you are, so it's been a good move career wise too anyway).
This isn't to say I'm some kind of right wing capitalist that Republican's love, on the contrary, I'm quite socialist in my views, but at the end of the day you can still give too much money to a particular public sector department, and this is exactly what happens when you do, and it's the same wherever you are in the world.
Most equipment has a finite life. Yes we have all see that 15y/o Cisco box in the back room everyone is afraid that if the UPS allowed to power down the fans in the Cisco or its power-supplies would never spin back up. Mostly competent business or state agencies depreciate stuff faster than that and replace it.
You should be able to reasonably estimate the needs of a facility like a library 3-5 years out. Then you build yourself a little head room. Take your most critical estimated capacity requirement multiply by 1.4 and size accordingly. Even that can lead to some over kill; like putting a 2811 where an 1841 might do, but its usually enough prevent any nasty surprises that require replacing equipment before the end of its service life. On balance it works out okay cost wise and may leave you with some residual value in the equipment that you can then resell. No reasonable person would have faulted Cisco for doing what I just described but some of the reports on this clearly show them over specifying by 5 or 10 times and more.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
When I worked public sector, the first priorities weren't getting the best price or best value. They were, in order:
1) Buy it from a registered state contractor (most of which had ridiculously jacked-up prices)
[or, if a state contractor didn't have it]:
2) Find a state contractor and get a "quote" on it (translation: Have a registered state contractor buy it for you and then attach a hefty fee on top of what they paid, rather than buy it directly and save money)
Three things will happen:
1. Someone will step forward to say that he predicted this would happen, but nobody would listen to him.
2. Some low-level functionary will have his life ruined.
3. Some high-level functionary will get a lobbying job or be appointed to a government regulation agency.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"Not Performed Legally"? "'legally unauthorized purchasing process"?
So, the opposite of legal... would be illegal.
Also: "Cisco showed a wanton indifference to the interests of the public"
Really, a profit driven company tried to fleece the public? I'm shocked, shocked like a man making toast in the bath!
Cisco did not fleece the public they put in their proposal and the government accepted it, this has all the markings of money burning a hole in the auditors pocket. The auditor had $24 million to spend so they spent it, they don't care if they had a cheaper option, they wanted the best they could get for the money they had, even if they didn't need it. Unfortunately the way government spending works is you are expected to spend every dime they give you. If you don't spend it all then you are punished by getting less or none next time around.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
performed their legal duty to maximize shareholder value
I'm getting tired of people translating this meme into reasons why a sales rep performed jackassery like the sale in question. Yes, the company owes its shareholders a true and ongoing effort to make their shares valuable. Part of that effort includes making the company valuable by maintaining its market-worthiness through the stewardship of its reputation with its customers. When a sales rep oversells like this, and it comes out in the press, it erodes the value of the company, and is counter to the make-shareholders-happy mandate.
The "corporate America is inherently bad because publicly traded companies must do wrong-headed things because they're required to" attack on businesses is just wrong. Thousands of businesses, every day, increase their near and long term value by being valuable to their customers. Nobody likes to talk about that in ranty internet forums because it takes all the fun out of shouting about The Man etc.
What Cisco did in this case was demonstrably not in the shareholders' interests.
I hate corporate America as much as the next guy
What you hate are the people and incidents that make you hate those people and incidents. In the meantime, millions of people at work in thousands of companies do sensible things every day, and have loyal customers as a result. But that never makes the news because it doesn't provide something to bitch about, and where would Slashdot be without that?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You missed the looping which is important, what happens is:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X
Person 2) OK, I shall do it
[ time passes ]
Person 2) Ive finished, and I only spent $1 million, so here's $2 million back.
[ time passes]
Person 1) Here's $1 million to do do Y
Or:
Person 1) Here's $3 million to go do X
Person 2) OK, I shall do it
[ time passes ]
Person 2) We've run out of money but we are almost done.
Person 3) OK, here's another $1 million.
[ time passes]
Person 2) Ive finished.
[ time passes]
Person 1) Here's $4 million to do do Y
If you've worked in anywhere that sells to large businesses/government you will have seen the end of budget rush as departments rush orders to get billed before the end of the budget year so they can spend their allocated budget before they have to give anything left back and get less next round. It's always our busiest time of year.
I don't see it as particularly a public/private difference, but a difference of well-run and poorly-run organizations.
Assuming that the private sector is always efficient is wrong, because anyone who's worked in large private sector companies knows full well that it's not. For example, most of the "management consulting" industry shouldn't really exist, because it's entire reason for existing is so that some manager Smith can hire an outside firm to tell their boss that Smith's plan is better than Jones' plan and thus secure Smith that promotion. One of the things that's becoming clear in corporate governance is that an employee of a corporation faced with making a decision that benefits themselves versus a decision that benefits the organization will pick themselves almost every time.
Assuming that the public sector is always inefficient is also wrong. There are public agencies that are ridiculously efficient at what they do. For example, the administrative overhead of Social Security is approximately 0.9%. The VA gets more bang for the health care buck than Medicaid, Medicare, and private medical insurance. The CFPB is doing a pretty good job on a shoestring budget. The National Park Service costs about $3 billion a year, which sounds like a lot but is actually about $10 per American, and in return it serves 280 million visitors a year, which certainly seems like a pretty good value.
More to the point, assuming the public sector inherently sucks means we stop rewarding those public servants that do a really good job, which will reduce their motivation and pretty much guarantee that they'll do it badly. And assuming the private sector inherently is efficient means we stop holding private organizations accountable when they screw up. Doing either is really stupid.
I am officially gone from