Google sues feds over Microsoft-centric bidding requirement

[pparks1]

Would just like to state for the record that Sevenforums is not a Microsoft forum, but an independent forum dedicated to A Microsoft product , and related hardware and software

I'm sorry, I know this isn't a Microsoft run/sponsored forum. My point was that it's for users of Microsoft products mainly. While I don't universally love Google and everything they do....I don't find their business practices any more appaulling than Microsoft's practices over the years.

 

[Lordbob75]

It doesn't meet their requirements, they asked for specific tailored solution--the Microsoft suite, Google offered something completely different.

Switching systems can be very expensive, esp. if the system they're switching to is new and unfamiliar to its staff.

I would like to point out that they didn't ask MS to make something just for them, MS already had the only thing that met the requirements.
I do agree that switching is expensive, I get that.

I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).

Would just like to state for the record that Sevenforums is not a Microsoft forum, but an independent forum dedicated to A Microsoft product , and related hardware and software

I'm sorry, I know this isn't a Microsoft run/sponsored forum. My point was that it's for users of Microsoft products mainly. While I don't universally love Google and everything they do....I don't find their business practices any more appaulling than Microsoft's practices over the years.

Don't forget Apple's, and... Pretty much everyone.

~Lordbob

 

[Trucidation]

I don't get it.

My company uses product X. We give out quotes/proposals/tenders with the stipulation that vendors also use product X-based solutions. Then a vendor selling product Y comes along and pitches a fit.

WTF?

Let me see if I understood this right...

The client-- all of its staff are used to and its systems operate on X product, in this case Microsoft Office. They advertise a project only for a interested company to threaten them, saying "Our software is MUCH better than what you're asking us to work with. Hire us now, rip out your preferred product and re-train all of your staff... or we'll sue you."

People advertising for work to be done should not be faced with such attacks. Either the company should be interested in the project or not at all.

Google's do no evil is just bull, this article reminds me why I don't use their services anymore.

Exactly.

Is Google is willing to shoulder all the costs for retraining staff, installing their software, and handling the system transition - all non-trivial tasks as anyone with a modicum of experience in these things should know especially if you work in the manufacturing industry? Yeah, let's toss out over a decades' worth of tried and tested procedures and go along with something else.

Google can go suck a big fat one.

 

[Layback Bear]

From post #1.
The only sticking point is that, while Google appears to have been jockeying for DOI viability since at least June 2009, it did not obtain accreditation from the General Services Administration or Federal Information Security Management Act certification until July 2010. Without them, it couldn't qualify as "interested party" in the contract. But those uncertified times are distant in Google's memory, and now it's out for federal blood.
________________________________________________
Looks to me Google has not been putting forth a effort for the proper certification for a long time but they still want to play the game. Why should the tax payer have to pay for a complete revamp of the system so Google can install their little thing in there. Next thing that comes to mind is; why would Microsoft allow Google to tamper with their programs so they could install Google programs that have not been certified by General Services Administration or Federal Information Security Management Act? That just might remove Microsoft from the certified list. When you sell something to our government to play by their rules.

 

[Bootz]

I would like to point out that people could easily get by day to day without Google as a company. They make not a single important service or product that people or businesses couldnt live without.

Microsoft on the other hand has a world wide effect on business and personal use.

This is why i think Microsoft is on a whole nother level as far as success goes compared to Google.

 

[Everlong]

I would like to point out that people could easily get by day to day without Google as a company. They make not a single important service or product that people or businesses couldnt live without.

Microsoft on the other hand has a world wide effect on business and personal use.

This is why i think Microsoft is on a whole nother level as far as success goes compared to Google.

The problem with Google is they just want to be where Microsoft is.

Or they're just trying to find someone to sue as they're being sued left, right and centre.

I love Google, and use quite a lot of their products, but no business is perfect. Nvidia, Intel, Microsoft etc all have their own flaws.

 

[logicearth]

I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).

It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.

It is anti-competitive because I chose to run Windows on my home computers? Do you think a business or an organisation's choices is some how different to individual's choices?

 

[Lordbob75]

I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).

It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.

Fair enough.

~Lordbob

 

[Horatio]

Several points, if I may:-

1. It is my understanding that this contract is for a "new" service - Cloud services, in fact? As such, I doubt that the arguments re. training, familiarity with current products, etc. apply much.

2. Training costs will be a part of the cost whoever is chosen. Also, one imagines that such costs are a part of the price?

3. I noted (reading the thread) that people thought that Google were/are not qualified to be bidding. If that were the case, I doubt that Google would be contesting the outcome of the contract award.

4. Also, most importantly, and to me most disturbing, is that there seems to be here an attitude from people that the procurer can simply require from a bidder the product of a specific supplier.
I'm sure that's true of private individuals/companies, although perhaps foolish.
i.e. a company buying a fleet of cars would do better to put out a specification for the cars and invite bids from various manufacturers, rather than say "We love Ford - please tell us your price"!

In the case of the Public Sector, I suspect that to actually state "Ford" would be illegal, and that this is what Google are now contesting.
Over the years, it has become increasingly common for I.T. tenders to go out that simply say "As Microsoft Word", or "With an Operating System that works just like Windows XP".
This is not good tendering practice!
It's akin to saying "Just like the Ford model XYZ".
What should happen is that a specification goes out, along the lines of:-

- Seating for n pasengers
- mpg at least xx urban, yy overall
- maintenance interval at least y miles or z months
- brakes to be....
- Air conditioning
- etc.

None of this seems to have happened, and hence the Google complaint.

I suspect that the law re. tendering is there, and I suspect that Google thinks that it has been ignored.
If so, they are quite right to protest, and (imo) Americans amongst you should be applauding them. If after proper investigation it transpires that the proper procedure was followed, or that the MS offer was the best, fine.

Remember, it's your tax dollars. For my own part, and Atlantic's width away from you, it's not material which of two American companies gets your tax dollars.
However, I'm convinced that if you ensure "proper" tendering and thereby competition in bidding for contracts of this sort, you will end up seeing better value for those dollars, whoever gets the contracts

 

[Tepid]

I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).

It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.

Fair enough.

~Lordbob

The real problem here is Google. They want to force their way into something that may not have even been open to them and crying foul.

Google has the problem, not the contract. Even if it is our gov't. If a contract runs out, but a term is agreed upon for renewal, it's ok. Google is saying it isn't because they don't get a piece of the action.

That is just like saying to Company X, we are suing you for not using our product, or giving us the opertunity to present our product to you. "But we aren't interested." ,, "We don't care, we are suing you anyway for the right to make you let us present it to you, and if you still say no, we will sue you for not wanting to use it."

THat IS Called TOTALITARINISM.

F Google.

In this case, The systems rely on one system. That is also like saying Google could get into the Server Hardware Business. Then what? Our Tax dollars will have to go into buying their hardware too? Otherwise it is anti-competitive? "We are suing you cause you are using old hardware and we want to offer you ours." But we don't need it." We (Google) don't care."

Maybe the sounds a little extreme, but to a degree, it's not. I may have over-exadurated to a degree. But where will it end?

 

[Trucidation]

1. It is my understanding that this contract is for a "new" service - Cloud services, in fact? As such, I doubt that the arguments re. training, familiarity with current products, etc. apply much.

You seem to forget it's not just the "user experience". Users don't exist in a vacuum. There exists entire layers of support just to ensure business runs uninterrupted. Work in IT for a large corporation then come back and tell me changes that take literally 10 minutes for a single user works the exact same way for companies.

Last year we migrated several departments from IE to FF. Less than 2k users so it wasn't like it was a huge move, and it was only a freaking browser change. Took a whole month just to properly move everybody forward and we were still taking support calls long afterwards, from people unable to find their mailboxes to people sending printouts to the wrong network printer. Hell, we have sessions on how to move from Office 2003 to 2010. They started in July. They're still on-going.

It's not as simple as buying an X-type product from company Y, while ignoring company Z. It might work for your 3-man mom-and-pop corner store retail operation, but we're talking government-scale here.

 

[Dave76]

Several points, if I may:-
...
Remember, it's your tax dollars. For my own part, and Atlantic's width away from you, it's not material which of two American companies gets your tax dollars.
However, I'm convinced that if you ensure "proper" tendering and thereby competition in bidding for contracts of this sort, you will end up seeing better value for those dollars, whoever gets the contracts

Good point.

From a fair tendering perspective, competition is the key to getting fair and attractive pricing. Setting the RFQ requirements too narrowly will significatly reduce the playing field, the players left will not feel the need to reply with aggressive pricing structures.

The key to this whole scenario is to provide an acceptable product and services that meet the criteria of the requesting entity at the best value. They can then decide who qualifies.

Competition between company X and Y might save some of our tax dollars.

 

[Barman58]

Total cost of ownership in a case like this particular tender requirement justifies the specification of Microsoft technologies because the actual cost of the tendered product will be, although substansial, only part of the TCO.

To use the car analogy stated above

If you are using Ford cars at present, and to facilitate this have invested in training / employing staff who know the Ford repair procedures, (down to the level of the unique structure of Ford Systems, not just the general mechanics). You also have invested in tools and spares to maintain the fleet.

If you do not specify the Ford requirement all this previous investment is wasted and the re-build of this infrastructure would far outweigh any potential savings from the actual tender cost, This could go so far that it would still cost more to change from Ford, if another manufacturer gave the cars for free.

This may not seem fair to another company trying to break into a particular market, but who says the world is fair, the agency setting the parameters for the tender have a duty, (and maybe even a legal requirement), to the people they represent, (not to the supplier), in this case the US tax payer, to reduce the TCO for the entire life of the project.

This would be the same if it were Microsoft trying to break into a market currently held by Google.

 

[logicearth]

Just to point out, Microsoft Business Productivity Online Standard Suite (BPOS), is not limited to being offered by Microsoft only. Several third-party vendors can offer servers and solutions that are based on BPOS with no connection to Microsoft's servers. Can in fact run it all on an intranet system if that is what is needed. Conversely, only Google offers the Google solution.

Extra, BPOS is being renamed/rebranded to Office 365. http://office365.microsoft.com

 

[Horatio]

Thanks for your responses, all.
There were some very good points there!

In truth, my only reason for posting at all was that I read the thread, and it seemed to be full of rather "jingoistic" comment. You guys have certainly redressed the balance since I posted, and I'm obliged to you

In particular:-

Total cost of ownership in a case like this particular tender requirement justifies the specification of Microsoft technologies because the actual cost of the tendered product will be, although substansial, only part of the TCO.

That's absolutely true.
In fact, one would hope that the tendering process examined the anticipated total cost of the proposed solutions over the whole life cycle? It's no good buying a cheap printer if the ink is an arm-and-a-leg every week for the ink!

Just a couple of things before I (try to!) duck out of this thread.....

1. I had mentally confused this contract with another. The contract we are talking about is, I believe, for supplying some 80,000 people with e-mail, at a cost of about $57,000,000. Have I got that right now?

2. I know that it sounds a bit "over the top" for Google to be suing its "own" government about this, and one can't help but feel that it's a lost cause as far as this particular contract is concerned.
That set me wondering. I just wonder if this is a very high-profile "shot across the bows" by Google, a warning for the future in fact, to try to remind U.S. Government procurement agencies that they have a legal obligation to follow a proper tendering process, and not just specify Microsoft (or anybody else) on the old principle that "Nobody ever got fired for buying I.B.M."?