[Info-vax] Dave Cutler, Prism, DEC, Microsoft, etc.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <IweRJQ32IoED at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <7o7aptF3osjr8U2 at mid.individual.net>, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> 
>> Auditor would have had a field day with that one.  Contract should have
>> been re-competed as the two are hardly equivalent and there actuall is
>> no such thing as a PDP-VAX.  I can't believe there wasn't a protest filed.
> 
>    Cost of the 8 11/70 vs. cost of the 8 11/780 was a tiny part of the
>    contract.  I don't know if they created justification for a protest,
>    but when I came on the job I was sure glad to be using VAXen.

having worked on both sides of the contracting issue, I can assure you
cost has nothing to do with it.  If the contract was awarded and any
changes were made in the deliverables the by the winner of the contract
after award it would be grounds for a protest.  That's one of the biggest
problems with contracting. especially in the IT world.  And also why the
government has gone almost exclusively to COTS for most of it's IT
requirements.  Once a contract is signed the contractor is required to
deliver what is in the contract.  Aallowing a contractor to change the
deliverable after award is an unfair advantage tot hat contractor and
definitely grounds for a protest.  It is why the process takes as long
as it does.  If you don't carefully spell out exactly what you want you
could find yourself forced to accept soemthing that will not do the job.
But if it meets the contract specs and the contract has been accepted,
your stuck with it.

Like I said, been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

bill


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>