Geek Austin Brewster McCracken issues statement on the City of Austin website contract
A case of local tax money going to California for something we can do locally.
- threew's blog
- Login or register to post comments
A case of local tax money going to California for something we can do locally.
Comments
That really makes me mad...
That really makes me mad... we've got a lot of people locally who do that sort of work that are unemployed or underemployed and yet they want to send the work to CA. I have trouble believing that a local small company can't build what the city needs for less than $700k, especially if they were to leverage free/open source technologies such as the Drupal CMS that door64 is built on. Heck, I could hire 3 or 4 other people, spend a year on it and make a lot more than I do now... But I doubt someone like myself would ever be given that chance.
Giving a devil (perhaps)
Giving a devil (perhaps) some due: They did have two local bids. Both almost double the bid from the California firm and one was knocked out due to compliance issues.
Government contracts -- even at the local level -- are tricky.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Only two bids though? How
Only two bids though? How did they solicit the bids? This is the first I've heard about it...
There are LITERALLY dozens of small to medium sized web design firms in the Austin area that could easily handle this sort of work...
I know dealing with government contracts can be a pain, but I really don't think the city made much of an attempt to try to get qualified local companies to try. Chances are they wanted to go with the CA company because they've done other city's web sites or a someone knows someone sort of deal.
I suspect, from what I've
I suspect, from what I've read, that the city uses the same process for soliciting bids as they do for any other initiative. As I understand it from the ABJ article, there were only 3 bids -- two from Austin and the one from CA.
According to background documents from the city, 228 notices were sent out to prospective Web development companies and three proposals were received back, including the one from Cignex.
That would be the "process" -- standard RFP. They've been working this since 4th QTR 2007. An Austin firm would need to get on that list (and qualify to do so) before they could be on the receiving end.
Governments will, according to taxpayer mandate, go with the low bid.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
It never ceases to amaze me
It never ceases to amaze me when people are "amazed." An RFP is an RFP. Doesn't California have qualified and un(under)employer IT workers? Low bid is low bid. Never ceases to amaze. Unless there was a "must bid" Austin or "must bid" Texas in the RFP, what can be expected? I wonder if the same "outrage" would be expressed if a San Antonio company had been awarded the contract...
You know there is a movement underfoot to help create job opps to the un(under)employed souls of Central/South Texas. We'll see what happens when some of the companies with empty seats unfreeze their hiring freezes.
Yep; amazed and
Yep; amazed and perplexed.
If it had been an SA firm, the outrage wouldn't have been as forceful but there would still be "issues."
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
I agree with threew, an SA
I agree with threew, an SA firm would have been a lot less of an issue than a DFW or Houston one, much less a CA one.
But either way, it appears
But either way, it appears that there wasn't a qualified bid from Austin.
Correct. William W. (Woody)
Correct.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Then why all of the hub-bub?
Then why all of the hub-bub?
Basically the reason it
Basically the reason it upsets me is that the whole thing seems like it was done clandestinely. Given the number of RFPs that were supposedly sent out, it is pretty hard to believe that only 3 proposals were returned. Many of us have come to be very suspicious of funny business when the government does things that don't seem to make sense. The trust of the people has been broken too many times.
Taxpayer mandate? Only if
Taxpayer mandate? Only if there was a "bid Texas only" clause in the RFP is there anything to complain about. IMO, people have to "learn the ropes."
Well said. William W.
Well said.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Where were the "objectors"
Where were the "objectors" when the RFP was issued? Did any of the "objectors" submit a proposal? How many Austin companies were there that submitted a proposal besides the one named (a totla of 3???). Its like they say about the lottery, "You've got to be in it to win it."
RFP's aren't public enough
RFP's aren't public enough to create "objectors" immediately ;~)
The original RFP list was 228 companies. Three proposals came in -- one from the CA company, the other two were local, Austin outfits. Haven't seen the detail (naming names) of who was or was not on the RFP List.
Both Austin bids were almost double the CA bid. One Austin bid was disqualified due to (unspecified) issues. Neither underbid the one from California so the disqualification is moot.
If local companies aren't signed up and qualified for these RFP's, they can't complain if they don't get the business.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
RFPs aren't public enough
RFPs aren't public enough for sure. The first time I even heard about the city wanting to revamp their web site was here. And that means unless it was in the Statesman and I just missed it or on the news, then it just didn't get covered until the backlash started.
PDF explaining some of the
PDF explaining some of the procedures: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/purchase/downloads/RFP0200.pdf. Some definitions here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/purchase/downloads/rfp0100.pdf
A more exhaustive document can be obtained from the Purchasing office.
Access to sign up as a vendor and view public postings is here: https://www.ci.austin.tx.us/vss/Advantage
From what I know about government solicitations, they are not "public" in the sense that they are advertised all over the place. Usually, RFPs are sent to registered vendors. They might be posted somewhere other than the city website (American-Stateman, for example) but I'm not sure about that.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
There had to be an
There had to be an obligatory public disclosure. If companies were not aware, then its not the city's fault.
Well, it depends. They can
Well, it depends. They can try to make such a disclosure in as quiet a manner as possible or they can really go out of their way to try to put it out there and get attention to it. Or something in between. Now, companies should be actively looking for business, but on the other hand, nobody can be looking everywhere all the time, so sometimes things are going to get missed. It is just a lot more likely that won't happen if the city goes out of their way to try to solicit local companies to participate than if they only send RFPs to companies that have previously done business with them, for example.
There is no way for me to
There is no way for me to respond to that without...well, there is either disclosure or there is not disclosure. This clandestine disclosure concept is way too "conspiratorial" for me.
Another example. I understand that the Texas Lottery has an RFP on the street to do a web site. How many Austin companies are bidding? I know that there are San Antonio companies doing so. Are you aware of that RFP?
We need someone in this
We need someone in this discussion from the marketing end of a web design firm.
We could also use someone from the CoA Purchasing dept.
I doubt the process is truly "clandestine" but I suspect it is something less than fully public.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
What we need is someone who
What we need is someone who bid and was rejected to comment. What we don't need is conjecture about what happened, and a bunch of "hand-wringing" over an unfair process. Bids are competitive. Are we suggesting that Austin is less transparent than the federal government? Are we suggesting that the City of Austin didn't want to award the job to an Austin-based company?
I'm certainly not suggesting
I'm certainly not suggesting any of that. The city sent 228 RFPs out for the contract. Probably quite a few went to Austin companies. Sounds pretty competitive to me.
I'm also certain CoA follows exactly the same process every time and that companies with interest in bidding for CoA jobs know how that is done.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
My point was that "somehow"
My point was that "somehow" an Austin company didn't win (and I meant my "suggestions" sarcastically). The hand wringing does nothing. If someone or a company wants to do business with the City of Austin, then they should know what's going on and how to do it. Otherwise, don't complain.
Ditto here. William W.
Ditto here.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Well, maybe if there hasn't
Well, maybe if there hasn't been such a clause in the past the taxpayers should start thinking about demanding one in the future.
The CA co. is inept,
The CA co. is inept, too.
from my post at < http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=60084287519&ref=mf >:
On Thursday March 26, the Austin city counsel intends to authorize the award, negotiation, and execution of a contract with Cignex Technologies of Santa Clara, CA, to redesign the City of Austin website for up to $704,088; see < http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/item_attachments.cfm?meeting... >.
Even after only a cursory examination of Cignex Technologies's own Web site (running the W3C validator on its markup), I can see that this organization is wholly unqualified to do professional Web site development, and is significantly worse than most.
Do date, I have found seven local developers that I would recommend for this job; see < http://www.syncopate.us/webawards/nominees >.
Please join me in contacting the City of Austin to oppose agenda item 38.
Thanks to Chip Rosenthal (of the Austin iGovernment Interest Group on Facebook) and Kedron Touvell for bringing this to my attention.
- John
The "vote will be delayed"
The "vote will be delayed" reports the Statesman; see < http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/26/0326websi... >. (Thanks again to Chip for feeding me info.) However, I just telephoned the office of the Austin city clerk (at 974-2210), which confirmed that the item (#38) is still on the agenda.
The item can be found at < http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/item_attachments.cfm?meeting... >. Unfortunately, whoever designed the page didn't include any reasonable navigation back to the rest of the site. (Clearly, the city needs to get a competent internal manager in this area, which I think should solve many current problems.)
These should be on that page:
< http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/public_meetings.cfm >
< http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/public_meeting_agenda.cfm?me... >
I saw a page somewhere that sends a message to the mayor and council, but there's no way I can find it now.
- John
In the ways these things
In the ways these things work, the item remains on the agenda. However, the request for more time from the communications director and the questions raised by Brewster will be raised and the vote delayed.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
I agree with you that the
I agree with you that the city's first steps should be hiring someone competent on their IT staff to administer and manage their web site. They should be someone who can wear the hats of Project Manager and Business Analyst during the design phase, and then Systems Administrator and Web Master once it is done. Having someone on-staff who is hands-on through the process would help a lot in preventing the city being back in their current situation a few years from now. I know that sounds like a lot to ask for, but it
isn't impossible because I've worked with people like that in the past, so they are out there. And given the current job crisis, there are probably several suitable candidates who are available here in Austin.
The city may already have
The city may already have good people in the right places. It just went through a lot of churn in key roles (including drumming out the CTO for allegedly running clandestine projects), and I'm willing to give the folks some time to settle into their roles. I volunteered (gratis) to educate them and help create proper project specifications.
I was a bit surprised to be the only one speaking on the matter (other than the CA company rep's), and to be interviewed by reporters from The Daily Texan, KUT, and KVUE TV.
- John