Reflection: Perhaps we should start looking at the highest bidder and figure out what the lowest bidder isn't including....
In Quebec, we seem plagued (seemingly justifiably) with really bad deals made by our government with regards to everything and specifically lately with IT.
Actually it applies outside of Quebec also, as the Federal Gun registry was supposed to cost 20 million and ended up costing 2000 million (2 billion)
The ArriveCAN application, a weekend programming project, ended up costing something like 800 million.
And Quebec does not want to miss the show, our latest fiasco: SAAQClic with cost over runs above 600 million.
I recently decided to delve into the government RFP world. Until now, since 1996 I had resisted and refused to get intimately involved for my enterprise or anything government RFP related.
I had seen too many RFP's with poorly designed specifications that perhaps seemed adequate for the common person, but from the eyes of an expert, all I could see where dangerous omissions.
Now someone who wishes to do business perhaps loves omissions. After all, they are the bread and butter of something called the "Change Request". Or perhaps I should call it the "endless chain of change requests".
From a business point of view, it is an amazing opportunity to bid low, and let the project suffer, so that you can then propose solutions that you now bill for as an additional charge.
For SAAQClic it seems this translated into a series of opportunistic entrepreneurs to step in with small under the radar contracts to "fix" all the issues that plagued the project.
Fast forward to my very recent experience with a government RFP. An RFP that needs a commercial software solution combines with an experienced deployment team.
As I reviewed the technical requirements I realized that we had two choices. Answer YES to everything (like all the manufacturers and vendors do) or lucky for us, leave the manufacturers answers of YES, but include the additional tools in our offer that will make the solution actually work in the clients real life deployment.
Now I am not saying I am dressed in white and a virgin. I do refuse to be involved with a proposal that is designed to fail. So I did choose to potentially be the highest bidder, therefor very unlikely to win since my team scoped the response to actually deliver the requirements and deliver a quality project with no change requests.
That is right, no change requests. That is our target. I know... I know... I am a terrible business man. The flip side of that coin is that I have high integrity and 100% client satisfaction. I take that as a Win.
How do we achieve this is simple: Experience and tooling. We have done this exact type of project repeatedly, so we know what works and what does not. We also have already built the tools to make it work given the shortcomings of the manufacturers products.
Technical requirements will always be filled with potential hazards since the people who build the RFP rarely have the experience of using the solutions that will be proposed.
So imagine you are buying a new car and your technical requirement is to have a range of 500 kilometers. The car you are looking at is electric and the spec sheets says 500 kilometer range. The salesman can answer YES to your requirement. When you go to use it, in Winter with heating or in the summer with air conditioning, you are not getting that range. So your "project" is a failure and you now need to buy a trailer and a generator to pull along to meet your range requirement. This may sound silly, but this is exactly what happens CONSTANTLY in government RFP's.
So what will happen when they open the envelopes for this latest RFP.
The lowest bidder will be evaluated for compliance to the requirements and be declared the winner.
What should happen, and where our government seems to fail, is that all the offers should be entirely reviewed to see WHY they are more expensive.
What if.... the highest bidder is actually providing what is needed for the project to deliver as expected.
What if the lowest bidder is using the age old approach of just answering YES to everything knowing that once the project is underway, the client will have no choice but to pay more to make it work.
Something worthy of reflection.
Eric Parent is a senior security expert, specialized in coaching senior executives. He occasionally teaches CyberSecurity at l'Ecole Polytechnique and HEC Universities in Montreal, and is CEO of Logicnet/EVA-Technologies, one of Canada's oldest privately owned security companies.
Follow Eric on:
Twitter @ericparent
LinkedIn : EVA-Technologies
No comments:
Post a Comment