November 30, 2009 at 13:14Public procurement and open source - lessons of tenders of the Ministry of Communications
The native Ministry of Communications threw new entertainment - published applications filed by IT figures for the announced competition "The right to conclude a state contract for the provision of services for the development of a standard electronic document management system based on free software based on the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation."
The competition as a competition, for 5 lemons, in the terms of reference vaguely says “This document is the terms of reference for the development of a standard electronic document management system for free software (hereinafter - STR), delivered with open source code (hereinafter EDMS or system), and determines the purpose systems, creation goals, requirements for software architecture and functional requirements for the system ... The system should use only open, modern elements and technologies that meet international international standards ... The system must support work in an environment of freely distributed operating systems. ” Well and further on points, what functions of a document flow they need - those who work with state structures, passed all this already 150 times.
There wouldn’t be anything particularly remarkable if the Ministry of Communications didn’t post on the public procurement website not only its own documentation, as required by law, but all tenders. FZ-94 does not require this, note. But openness is so open, in an adult way. “So that everyone’s stupidity is visible,” not otherwise.
And the stupidity there, as even a cursory acquaintance with applications shows, is so much that half of the IT market is brutally grumbling, and the second half is scratching turnips, trying to unravel this rebus.
For starters, we look at the list of applicants for sovereign money and how much each of them wants for their services:
OJSC Industrial Information Systems - 1.5 million rubles.
Basic Technologies LLC - 5 million rubles.
CJSC Firm IT Co. Information Technologies ”- 30,000 rubles.
LLC Scientific-Production Center 1C - 1.8 million rubles.
CJSC Aplana Software - 2 million rubles.
CJSC LANIT - 2 million rubles.
Armada Soft CJSC - 1.398 million rubles.
The first thing that catches your eye is the price of an application from IT Co. The question immediately arises - who was mistaken by two orders of magnitude, was IT in a hurry, or those that laid out the documentation on the site? In any case, in official tender documents there are similar errors, and even in the price point - blatant disorder.
Okay, let's move on. Of the seven contestants, the first two firms - “Industrial Information Systems” and “Basic Technologies” - are unknown to anyone with whom we discussed this competition. Well, let's say these are some kind of unknown, but still heroes. We read the application or something, for verification.
The first application posted St. Petersburg PromInformSystem. This ... this, I tell you, is generally beyond good and evil. It feels like people ate overeating mushrooms and at the same time got smoke, and at night before the deadline they piled on their knees what came to mind. Of course, we all understand that there are clouds of one-day firms dumping at tenders, but one and a half lemons is still not such dumping. It seems like the guys from this cohort. In general, nonsense, just nonsense, not an application.
“Basic Technologies” decided not to be ashamed of their obscurity, rolled out the price to the maximum. The application contains mainly general words about how everything will be flexible, scaled, made according to customer requirements and other idle talk, plus a list of the usual functionality of workflow systems. STR is mentioned. Twice as much: “The database level is represented by the EnterpriseDB (Postgres Plus Advanced Server v8.3 Release 2) database” and “The Apr Software Foundation Enterprise Solr Solution” is used to organize the search. But then you stumble upon the phrase “The system is focused on supporting the MS Internet Explorer Web browser”. Hmm Is it our open technology or open source software, as required in the terms of reference? And what, even under Firefox - it’s completely, absolutely impossible to overpower?
In general, 30 pages of sound text is about nothing.
We open the IT Co. application and ... something strange ... like it was already somewhere? Oh, so this is an application of Basic Technologies! Only painted already at 60 pages, with beautiful pictures and more specifics. And with names like Apache, JBoss Enterprise Portal, Postgres Plus, елnhelis ’shortcut to IE in a short list of browsers, implementation methodology, GOSTs and other attributes of a normal tender.
One gets the feeling that “Basic Technologies” was written off from “IT”, throwing half away, not really thinking about the importance of the discarded. Or both companies draw from one single source of tender wisdom - each to the best of their understanding. We will not assume the worst, right? Because for the worst since November 1, it’s no longer administrative, but a criminal article up to 7 years old.
Be that as it may, in the application of IT Co., in addition to the mentioned STR, phrases such as “The system will provide the ability to work in networks both with the deployed MS Active Directory infrastructure and without it (in work groups) are found.” Why normal directories are not mentioned is unknown. Why there are no open document formats in the document management system based on open source software is not clear. What is the openness of the application system itself is also not obvious. In general, many questions remain. And there is no price in the text of the IT Co. application itself, which is very strange and wrong. So we can assume that IT Co. is ready to establish 700 jobs for 30 thousand rubles LOL.
Another contestant, “Aplana”, as I recall, was a member of the IT Co. group of companies. Their presence side by side in one tender looks, to put it mildly, strange. Either they have diverged so far that they can now act as direct competitors, or ... again bad thoughts suggest themselves. Moreover, the applications of these companies are almost identical. Except that the “Aplana” on page 58 says: HERE YOU EXPRESSLY REQUIRE TO RECORD THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE REPORT GENERATOR, WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATION ON ANY OS AND WILL BE IN OPEN SOURCES !!!
Guys, don’t shout like that. If you finish everything at the last moment, there is a great risk of flying over because of nonsense.
The “Aplans” application was rejected on formal grounds - not stitched, not signed, etc.
Application “1C” at a glance recalls the flagship product. A table is like an accounting one, only less readable, because the text, not the numbers. But this is not touching. With a consistent presentation of the types of work, the names of works and methods, “1C”, without further ado, writes that it will conduct an “Expert assessment of the appropriateness of using open-source software technologies and technological solutions for building scalable systems.”
Indeed, what difference does it make that the customer asks for STR. Experts know better whether this is the most open source software! They know and the customer will be taught how to. And already in paragraph 3 of the submitted application we see:
3.1. Acquisition of licensed software for workplaces
3.1.1. Choice of licensed software for workstations with support for digital signature of EDMS segments.
3.1.2. Purchase of licensed software for workstations with support for digital signature of EDMS segments.
How?? Did experts really think that using open source software is inappropriate? Or do they know in advance that this software will be paid, albeit with open source code? And do they even know that there is a choice of such software?
If they know, then why the next item is this:
3.3 Development of a distribution kit for installing software on the AWP for users of the EDMS.
3.3.1. Compiling a set of tools for installing software on the AWP for users of EDMS.
Methods: Technological technique “Configuring the“ 1C: Document Management 8.2 ”open source system based on the 1C: Enterprise 8 technology platform”
In general, I consider it admirable. “Sleight of hand and no fraud.” With an easy movement, all the wealth of choice turns into ... 1C: Enterprise, of course! You won’t even immediately notice how gracefully you were brought to this point. Applause.
Okay, that’s not the question. I believe that 1C will develop something and give its codes to a specific customer (although the statement that 1C: Enterprise is an open system is still very ambiguous). But is it possible to consider such a development of open source software, as stated in the competitive terms of reference? How flexible can this definition be in principle to be used in this way? This is where we run into a crucial moment, which, perhaps, will further determine the entire game on open source hosted games.
The “Armada” application is of no interest - this offspring of RBC is usually not seen in something adequate. The offer is one-on-one like in 1C, only half a lemon cheaper (which is also ridiculous, but understandable - in 1C at least they got a hand on the implants, and contacting Armada is still fun).
LANIT remained. Here everything is more or less intelligible, with a specific enumeration of what the system will work on: J2EE platform (Jboss, Oracle AS, Sun AS, GLASSFISH), DBMS (Firebird, Oracle, MS SQL), BI (Pentaho Reporting), process management ( Enhydra Shark), portal (Apache Jackrabbit), OpenOffice.org mentioned (no one else bothered to bother), OS (Windows 2003, RHEL, SLES, Fedora Linux), IBM server platform, which is logical - normal certification and support for Linux solutions That for the state customer should be important. In general, people know what they are talking about. One thing is not clear - in fact, the EDMS that LANIT offers is the Core Process, as they say, freely distributed. However, I have not yet been able to find the source code.
In general, it came up with a good idea for the Ministry of Communications, to publish applications completely. So. You see, the broad IT community will begin to better understand who is worth what in the IT market. And integrators will continue to be ashamed to arrange such an unscrupulous farce out of the competition and will not drag on a tender in which open source software is written in free text, their proprietary developments. It is clear that companies still do not have enough real expertise in open source software, and I really want to make money on this topic, but this is not a reason to act so shamelessly, and even not to bother to study the solutions existing in the open source software market.
However, the Ministry of Communications also needs to grind definitions. Because the current version of the tender documentation, which is not sufficiently rigidly written, allows quiet boot to push open source development of integrators - and this is even open, but not freely distributed code. And this is fundamentally important, because if there is no development and support community, the state customer will remain tied to one supplier, no matter how many lines of code he provides.
And the main mystery - why no one, neither these seven applicants, nor real open source companies, absolutely no one offered Alfresco for the tender ?? All this clowning could have at least some justification if the market did not have a real freely distributed and high-quality workflow system, but Alfresco is and does not know about it just lazy!
What are your versions of what is happening?
And I am stocking up with popcorn pending the decision of the tender commission and the continuation of publications from the Ministry of Communications. Moreover, the next competition is planned in this series - this time for 14 million rubles., Research work on open source software.
The competition as a competition, for 5 lemons, in the terms of reference vaguely says “This document is the terms of reference for the development of a standard electronic document management system for free software (hereinafter - STR), delivered with open source code (hereinafter EDMS or system), and determines the purpose systems, creation goals, requirements for software architecture and functional requirements for the system ... The system should use only open, modern elements and technologies that meet international international standards ... The system must support work in an environment of freely distributed operating systems. ” Well and further on points, what functions of a document flow they need - those who work with state structures, passed all this already 150 times.
There wouldn’t be anything particularly remarkable if the Ministry of Communications didn’t post on the public procurement website not only its own documentation, as required by law, but all tenders. FZ-94 does not require this, note. But openness is so open, in an adult way. “So that everyone’s stupidity is visible,” not otherwise.
And the stupidity there, as even a cursory acquaintance with applications shows, is so much that half of the IT market is brutally grumbling, and the second half is scratching turnips, trying to unravel this rebus.
For starters, we look at the list of applicants for sovereign money and how much each of them wants for their services:
OJSC Industrial Information Systems - 1.5 million rubles.
Basic Technologies LLC - 5 million rubles.
CJSC Firm IT Co. Information Technologies ”- 30,000 rubles.
LLC Scientific-Production Center 1C - 1.8 million rubles.
CJSC Aplana Software - 2 million rubles.
CJSC LANIT - 2 million rubles.
Armada Soft CJSC - 1.398 million rubles.
The first thing that catches your eye is the price of an application from IT Co. The question immediately arises - who was mistaken by two orders of magnitude, was IT in a hurry, or those that laid out the documentation on the site? In any case, in official tender documents there are similar errors, and even in the price point - blatant disorder.
Okay, let's move on. Of the seven contestants, the first two firms - “Industrial Information Systems” and “Basic Technologies” - are unknown to anyone with whom we discussed this competition. Well, let's say these are some kind of unknown, but still heroes. We read the application or something, for verification.
The first application posted St. Petersburg PromInformSystem. This ... this, I tell you, is generally beyond good and evil. It feels like people ate overeating mushrooms and at the same time got smoke, and at night before the deadline they piled on their knees what came to mind. Of course, we all understand that there are clouds of one-day firms dumping at tenders, but one and a half lemons is still not such dumping. It seems like the guys from this cohort. In general, nonsense, just nonsense, not an application.
“Basic Technologies” decided not to be ashamed of their obscurity, rolled out the price to the maximum. The application contains mainly general words about how everything will be flexible, scaled, made according to customer requirements and other idle talk, plus a list of the usual functionality of workflow systems. STR is mentioned. Twice as much: “The database level is represented by the EnterpriseDB (Postgres Plus Advanced Server v8.3 Release 2) database” and “The Apr Software Foundation Enterprise Solr Solution” is used to organize the search. But then you stumble upon the phrase “The system is focused on supporting the MS Internet Explorer Web browser”. Hmm Is it our open technology or open source software, as required in the terms of reference? And what, even under Firefox - it’s completely, absolutely impossible to overpower?
In general, 30 pages of sound text is about nothing.
We open the IT Co. application and ... something strange ... like it was already somewhere? Oh, so this is an application of Basic Technologies! Only painted already at 60 pages, with beautiful pictures and more specifics. And with names like Apache, JBoss Enterprise Portal, Postgres Plus, елnhelis ’shortcut to IE in a short list of browsers, implementation methodology, GOSTs and other attributes of a normal tender.
One gets the feeling that “Basic Technologies” was written off from “IT”, throwing half away, not really thinking about the importance of the discarded. Or both companies draw from one single source of tender wisdom - each to the best of their understanding. We will not assume the worst, right? Because for the worst since November 1, it’s no longer administrative, but a criminal article up to 7 years old.
Be that as it may, in the application of IT Co., in addition to the mentioned STR, phrases such as “The system will provide the ability to work in networks both with the deployed MS Active Directory infrastructure and without it (in work groups) are found.” Why normal directories are not mentioned is unknown. Why there are no open document formats in the document management system based on open source software is not clear. What is the openness of the application system itself is also not obvious. In general, many questions remain. And there is no price in the text of the IT Co. application itself, which is very strange and wrong. So we can assume that IT Co. is ready to establish 700 jobs for 30 thousand rubles LOL.
Another contestant, “Aplana”, as I recall, was a member of the IT Co. group of companies. Their presence side by side in one tender looks, to put it mildly, strange. Either they have diverged so far that they can now act as direct competitors, or ... again bad thoughts suggest themselves. Moreover, the applications of these companies are almost identical. Except that the “Aplana” on page 58 says: HERE YOU EXPRESSLY REQUIRE TO RECORD THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE REPORT GENERATOR, WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATION ON ANY OS AND WILL BE IN OPEN SOURCES !!!
Guys, don’t shout like that. If you finish everything at the last moment, there is a great risk of flying over because of nonsense.
The “Aplans” application was rejected on formal grounds - not stitched, not signed, etc.
Application “1C” at a glance recalls the flagship product. A table is like an accounting one, only less readable, because the text, not the numbers. But this is not touching. With a consistent presentation of the types of work, the names of works and methods, “1C”, without further ado, writes that it will conduct an “Expert assessment of the appropriateness of using open-source software technologies and technological solutions for building scalable systems.”
Indeed, what difference does it make that the customer asks for STR. Experts know better whether this is the most open source software! They know and the customer will be taught how to. And already in paragraph 3 of the submitted application we see:
3.1. Acquisition of licensed software for workplaces
3.1.1. Choice of licensed software for workstations with support for digital signature of EDMS segments.
3.1.2. Purchase of licensed software for workstations with support for digital signature of EDMS segments.
How?? Did experts really think that using open source software is inappropriate? Or do they know in advance that this software will be paid, albeit with open source code? And do they even know that there is a choice of such software?
If they know, then why the next item is this:
3.3 Development of a distribution kit for installing software on the AWP for users of the EDMS.
3.3.1. Compiling a set of tools for installing software on the AWP for users of EDMS.
Methods: Technological technique “Configuring the“ 1C: Document Management 8.2 ”open source system based on the 1C: Enterprise 8 technology platform”
In general, I consider it admirable. “Sleight of hand and no fraud.” With an easy movement, all the wealth of choice turns into ... 1C: Enterprise, of course! You won’t even immediately notice how gracefully you were brought to this point. Applause.
Okay, that’s not the question. I believe that 1C will develop something and give its codes to a specific customer (although the statement that 1C: Enterprise is an open system is still very ambiguous). But is it possible to consider such a development of open source software, as stated in the competitive terms of reference? How flexible can this definition be in principle to be used in this way? This is where we run into a crucial moment, which, perhaps, will further determine the entire game on open source hosted games.
The “Armada” application is of no interest - this offspring of RBC is usually not seen in something adequate. The offer is one-on-one like in 1C, only half a lemon cheaper (which is also ridiculous, but understandable - in 1C at least they got a hand on the implants, and contacting Armada is still fun).
LANIT remained. Here everything is more or less intelligible, with a specific enumeration of what the system will work on: J2EE platform (Jboss, Oracle AS, Sun AS, GLASSFISH), DBMS (Firebird, Oracle, MS SQL), BI (Pentaho Reporting), process management ( Enhydra Shark), portal (Apache Jackrabbit), OpenOffice.org mentioned (no one else bothered to bother), OS (Windows 2003, RHEL, SLES, Fedora Linux), IBM server platform, which is logical - normal certification and support for Linux solutions That for the state customer should be important. In general, people know what they are talking about. One thing is not clear - in fact, the EDMS that LANIT offers is the Core Process, as they say, freely distributed. However, I have not yet been able to find the source code.
In general, it came up with a good idea for the Ministry of Communications, to publish applications completely. So. You see, the broad IT community will begin to better understand who is worth what in the IT market. And integrators will continue to be ashamed to arrange such an unscrupulous farce out of the competition and will not drag on a tender in which open source software is written in free text, their proprietary developments. It is clear that companies still do not have enough real expertise in open source software, and I really want to make money on this topic, but this is not a reason to act so shamelessly, and even not to bother to study the solutions existing in the open source software market.
However, the Ministry of Communications also needs to grind definitions. Because the current version of the tender documentation, which is not sufficiently rigidly written, allows quiet boot to push open source development of integrators - and this is even open, but not freely distributed code. And this is fundamentally important, because if there is no development and support community, the state customer will remain tied to one supplier, no matter how many lines of code he provides.
And the main mystery - why no one, neither these seven applicants, nor real open source companies, absolutely no one offered Alfresco for the tender ?? All this clowning could have at least some justification if the market did not have a real freely distributed and high-quality workflow system, but Alfresco is and does not know about it just lazy!
What are your versions of what is happening?
And I am stocking up with popcorn pending the decision of the tender commission and the continuation of publications from the Ministry of Communications. Moreover, the next competition is planned in this series - this time for 14 million rubles., Research work on open source software.