April 24, 2009 at 15:04Technologies for sawing tenders
As you know, budgets for state IT projects are allocated considerable. Take the same "school portal" for almost 15 million. The result and level of work is also known. Take the same "school portal."
And after all, all this is carried out through “tenders”. Tender commissions are convened, some “requirements” are written, “protocols” are drawn up based on the results of the “vote”.
Participation in such a tender will cost you the time, nerves, strengths, and even various other troubles (a lot of loot).
Today I will talk about how to recognize a tender that you should not participate in and about the “technologies” used by sawmill budgets.
There are companies that have long and firmly specialized in “winning” tenders and developing budgets. The business process in the rollback office is simple: we know the right people, agree on the “winning” of the tender, they will get a rollback, we will get profit, and we will order the site from the cheapest “developers”.
Why, with such gigantic budgets that are allocated to state websites, is their quality so sad? Why not afford a normal developer? First, a rollback to an official in such transactions can take up 30, 50, and 70 percent of the budget (the farther south, the more). Secondly, the greed of the owners of the rollback office.
Now you understand why on one very famous portal, which still had "RAID burned out", pieces of the site were loaded from the server of the Association of Young Programmers of Bulbulistan? ;-)
The main capital of such offices is relations with officials. CEOs are constantly hanging out with “the right people,” and relatively high patrons (some may even give out state awards) make them feel confident.
Not every official has connections with a large rollback office. And large rollback offices with serious patrons will not agree to absorb every budget.
Therefore, many do this: start their pocket firm (as an option, through a legal person of friends or relatives), and pour orders there. Moreover, the orders are very different - from the manufacture of the site to the supply of stationery.
Then everything is the same as in the first version: the developers are cheaper - more in your pocket.
Yes, of course, there is a technical task, there are some quality criteria. But this does not stop cutting loot and not be afraid.
Firstly, in the case of a large rollback office there are fairly high patrons (remember, some may even hang a state award). Always smeared. If in a civilized country the excuse about a “burned out RAID” would not have swept “, then with us - even things have not started.
Secondly, who can check the level of product quality and the conformity of its technical specifications? One who accepts work. And who takes the job? That's right, the beneficiary and the initiator of the cut.
And therefore, if the tender has conditions for “support of the site” or “production and posting of a video in support” there, this “support” and other “work” will not be (this is simply unprofitable, it is done only to screen out competitors), but for their absence - no one will ask.
The patronage of “big people” and the lack of mechanisms for independent monitoring of the results of tenders make these multi-sized sawing units very difficult to float.
They can, but only in a fair tender. If the tender is deliberately “sawn”, there is a multi-stage screening scheme for unnecessary competitors.
Firstly, most studios can be weeded out according to some formal criterion. Say, if the sawmill has been “operating on the market” for 5 years, and the turnover (not surprisingly, the turnover will be cut on state budgets), for example, 20 million Tugriks, then the requirements will be stated so.
Another criterion that they like to use is “experience working with authorities.” It goes without saying that sawmills that specialize in this alone have such “experience”.
A couple of times I came across “technical specifications” in which it was necessary to ensure that the site worked on a certain “system”, and this “system” was nothing more than its own closed development of the office, under which the tender was “imprisoned”.
Another feature is obviously unfavorable conditions. You will be offered to “maintain the site” for a year, fill it with content, etc. If done honestly and efficiently - to hire photographers, writers, journalists, proofreaders, a content manager, then such “support” will gobble up the entire margin. But remember, who checks the result? The initiator sawed. The office, which will “win” in such a tender, will not engage in any “site support”. They will put a free student for a look, that's all. It goes without saying that haulers themselves will not make claims on the quality of such "services".
Another favorite feature is to “wrap up” the main budget for developing a site in a wrapper from other “requirements”. Let's say you are creating sites. Specialize in this. Why let you participate in the tender? The lot is added to what you definitely do not specialize in (but what will the saw room be ready for): for example, to shoot a video, make brochures, do “marketing research”, provide editorial support.
Even if you manage to find subcontractors and not lose your entire margin (see above), you will be refused on formal grounds. For example, these types of activities are not spelled out in your constituent documents.
If you break through these barriers, be prepared for “friendly advice,” and if you don't hear them, then for “unscheduled inspections,” and other troubles.
Firstly, large rollback offices in each industry are known in advance. They are on an all-Russian scale, and in urban.
If you see that such a sawmill is participating in the tender, then most likely a tender was made for it. Of course, you can participate in such a tender. But, having prepared a detailed proposal and a set of accompanying documentation for 300 pages, stitched and sealed, you run the risk of finding your proposal rejected with the wording “dumping”.
So it was when in one of the previous firms in which I worked, we tried to participate in a large tender. Our price offer was 15% cheaper. A little later, colleagues from another company, who almost got involved in this hopeless enterprise, said that they were "secretly advised not to participate."
If you see that in the terms of reference for the development of the site there are extraneous works (such as making a newspaper publishing the materials of the site) or the requirement for some very special technologies belonging to a certain office, consider whether it is worth investing time, effort and nerves in such a tender.
***
Technology one: rollback office, or a large sawmill
There are companies that have long and firmly specialized in “winning” tenders and developing budgets. The business process in the rollback office is simple: we know the right people, agree on the “winning” of the tender, they will get a rollback, we will get profit, and we will order the site from the cheapest “developers”.
Why, with such gigantic budgets that are allocated to state websites, is their quality so sad? Why not afford a normal developer? First, a rollback to an official in such transactions can take up 30, 50, and 70 percent of the budget (the farther south, the more). Secondly, the greed of the owners of the rollback office.
Now you understand why on one very famous portal, which still had "RAID burned out", pieces of the site were loaded from the server of the Association of Young Programmers of Bulbulistan? ;-)
The main capital of such offices is relations with officials. CEOs are constantly hanging out with “the right people,” and relatively high patrons (some may even give out state awards) make them feel confident.
The second technology: a pocket firm, or a two-handed saw
Not every official has connections with a large rollback office. And large rollback offices with serious patrons will not agree to absorb every budget.
Therefore, many do this: start their pocket firm (as an option, through a legal person of friends or relatives), and pour orders there. Moreover, the orders are very different - from the manufacture of the site to the supply of stationery.
Then everything is the same as in the first version: the developers are cheaper - more in your pocket.
But what about the result, you ask?
Yes, of course, there is a technical task, there are some quality criteria. But this does not stop cutting loot and not be afraid.
Firstly, in the case of a large rollback office there are fairly high patrons (remember, some may even hang a state award). Always smeared. If in a civilized country the excuse about a “burned out RAID” would not have swept “, then with us - even things have not started.
Secondly, who can check the level of product quality and the conformity of its technical specifications? One who accepts work. And who takes the job? That's right, the beneficiary and the initiator of the cut.
And therefore, if the tender has conditions for “support of the site” or “production and posting of a video in support” there, this “support” and other “work” will not be (this is simply unprofitable, it is done only to screen out competitors), but for their absence - no one will ask.
The patronage of “big people” and the lack of mechanisms for independent monitoring of the results of tenders make these multi-sized sawing units very difficult to float.
Can't normal developers win?
They can, but only in a fair tender. If the tender is deliberately “sawn”, there is a multi-stage screening scheme for unnecessary competitors.
Layered defense against unnecessary competitors
Firstly, most studios can be weeded out according to some formal criterion. Say, if the sawmill has been “operating on the market” for 5 years, and the turnover (not surprisingly, the turnover will be cut on state budgets), for example, 20 million Tugriks, then the requirements will be stated so.
Another criterion that they like to use is “experience working with authorities.” It goes without saying that sawmills that specialize in this alone have such “experience”.
A couple of times I came across “technical specifications” in which it was necessary to ensure that the site worked on a certain “system”, and this “system” was nothing more than its own closed development of the office, under which the tender was “imprisoned”.
Another feature is obviously unfavorable conditions. You will be offered to “maintain the site” for a year, fill it with content, etc. If done honestly and efficiently - to hire photographers, writers, journalists, proofreaders, a content manager, then such “support” will gobble up the entire margin. But remember, who checks the result? The initiator sawed. The office, which will “win” in such a tender, will not engage in any “site support”. They will put a free student for a look, that's all. It goes without saying that haulers themselves will not make claims on the quality of such "services".
Another favorite feature is to “wrap up” the main budget for developing a site in a wrapper from other “requirements”. Let's say you are creating sites. Specialize in this. Why let you participate in the tender? The lot is added to what you definitely do not specialize in (but what will the saw room be ready for): for example, to shoot a video, make brochures, do “marketing research”, provide editorial support.
Even if you manage to find subcontractors and not lose your entire margin (see above), you will be refused on formal grounds. For example, these types of activities are not spelled out in your constituent documents.
If you break through these barriers, be prepared for “friendly advice,” and if you don't hear them, then for “unscheduled inspections,” and other troubles.
How to recognize a previously lost tender
Firstly, large rollback offices in each industry are known in advance. They are on an all-Russian scale, and in urban.
If you see that such a sawmill is participating in the tender, then most likely a tender was made for it. Of course, you can participate in such a tender. But, having prepared a detailed proposal and a set of accompanying documentation for 300 pages, stitched and sealed, you run the risk of finding your proposal rejected with the wording “dumping”.
So it was when in one of the previous firms in which I worked, we tried to participate in a large tender. Our price offer was 15% cheaper. A little later, colleagues from another company, who almost got involved in this hopeless enterprise, said that they were "secretly advised not to participate."
Analyze TK
If you see that in the terms of reference for the development of the site there are extraneous works (such as making a newspaper publishing the materials of the site) or the requirement for some very special technologies belonging to a certain office, consider whether it is worth investing time, effort and nerves in such a tender.
***