Slashdot Mirror
$1 Bid Wins Government Open Source Software Purchasing Experiment (gsa.gov)
An anonymous reader writes: A couple weeks ago we discussed a project from a software team within the U.S. General Services Administration. Its goal was to set up a portal to let developers bid on the creation of open source code needed by the government. From the beginning, they said it was an experiment, and now the results are in from their first project. The project was quickly bid all the way down to $1, and on Wednesday, the winner delivered a functional solution that met their criteria. They say, "When we received the $1 bid, we immediately tried to figure out whether it was intentional, whether it was from a properly registered company, and whether we could award $1. We contacted the bidder and we confirmed that the bid was valid, that the registration on SAM.gov was current, and that the bid would be the winning bid. It was a plot twist that no one here at 18F expected. This unexpected development will no doubt force us to rethink some of our assumptions about the reverse-auction model." Despite their surprise, the team feels this is proof that the system can succeed. They're now working to refine the process.
I initially read it as $1B
If it builds your reputation then you will likely have additional customers looking to hire you at much more reasonable rates.
Next up is a reverse bid on a Multi-Purpose Fighter Jet, they are expect the winning bid to be between $5 and $10...
And then, when all competent contenders are out of the picture, prices raise and quality drops. This is _not_ a problem where a capitalist competitive approach is a good idea, as this is not about standardized products that a lot of people can produce.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
One dollar for the program. Okay. That's bragging rights.
How much is the support contract?
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
'Free' may not quite mean free.
It means you can now advertise this in your resume, for example.
Sure but is it a race to the bottom? I mean the whole point is to offer something for cheap now to cash in later, lots of things are about that like oh every sale in existence. But it doesn't work if people are jumping in all the time thinking they'll be the next big thing, the next time you're making a "real" bid the next guy offers $1 and so it goes on and on. I mean $1 isn't ten minutes at minimum wage, it's way below any kind of living wage even eating Ramen noodles and living in your parent's basement. I have a friend who does music on a semi-professional basis, and yeah you can almost always get a free-ish band doing it for the exposure. And they've had to man up and say if that's what you want that's fine but it won't be our band. They've practiced many, many hours both alone and together and want to see some kind of pay-off but they're constantly in competition with bands that think this is their lottery ticket to stardom and will sell themselves very cheap. Like he commented on a local festival, he'd like to play for the local community but it'd have to be almost for free and the other bands don't get play time anywhere else and it would tarnish their reputation. The price tag is mostly about perception, a big name is worth a big price and then you can't act small.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is exactly what free market means. This isn't a problem.
What I've never understood about those who declare that anything that arises from a free market is good is this: why isn't unionisation considered a market force? Why is it OK for large businesses to consolidate to wield ever greater power, but workers are told that acting collectively is "interfering in the market"?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'