government procurement processes were...
government procurement processes were simpler, quicker and more efficient?
written 27th September 2009 | | abusive?rated 9.0/10 by 2 users | rate a random post
Responses
-
Josh W notes: How about they were less simple, less efficient and slower?
If you can't disagree with something sensibly, it probably doesn't need saying!
Actually there is a good reason for not making it simpler; a discriminating procurement system will use multiple forms of information and filtering in order to make it's decision, not just going for the cheapest or drawing out of a hat (both "simpler" methods).
But while that is true, you should lower the information loads on people contributing, to widen the possible bids that they can receive, as well as making it as flexible as possible, so that people can suggest slightly altered briefs without blocking themselves from contribution.
Equally efficiency in the long term requires the ability to change brief and possibly even contractor without too much trouble, which requires the companies to build stuff in such a way that other companies can come in. Bizarrely enough this can encourage getting multiple people to work on the same big contract, because they are forced to communicate and build standards, meaning that you can work off of their work more easily.
Also, when an old company comes in, it should probably be required to give a public explanation of the reasons for the last failure and what it has done about them before it is allowed to tender for a new contract.
This would stop monopolies just rolling on with mistakes, because every hit to their reputation is in the records.
written 17th October 2009 | abusive?