Every government has
the obligation to take care spending public funds. For that reason
regional, national and even international rules have been set in
place. You're not allowed to exclude providers or suppliers nor to
promote them without good cause. You are supposed not to gain from an
assignment or order (read bribery). Unfair competitive advantages
(specific product or brand requests) nor between company agreements
(cartel) are allowed. The procurement must be transparent and all
information must be publicly available. And anyone selected for
providing the goods or services must be a respectful and trusted
supplier. And, we're economic: spending should be minimal.
What to do, being a
civil servant? You start searching for certainty and escape routes.
Certainties you can build in by pre-selection: set up a scope of
demands the provider or supplier has to comply with. Mark: in future!
Look for turnover, number of employees, number of comparable
assignments, price per unit, guarantees on competences and
deployment, partaking on future requests. Most of business (90%?) is
excluded beforehand because they cannot comply, ever. From the 10%
that remain you select the top-10 (1%) or less which are allowed to
compete and deliver, year in year out and with exclusion of all
others for years to come. This is called a Master Agreement by which
governments pre-select possible suppliers.
What about exclusion
of suppliers, no gain from an order, no unfair competitive advantages
or cartel agreements, transparency, respectful and trusted suppliers?
And caring about spending? All small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) are excluded in advance by the defining demands. New entrants
on the market or new and cheaper suppliers do not count. There is no
real competition and selected companies can set orders and pricing
between themselves or share orders by combined offerings, closing
their market share even further. Parties must act on procurement
requests and will offer for too high a price, but they are committed
to making an offer, just because they have too many projects running
already. For the outsider it looks like fair competition where there
is none.
Escape routes are
built in by requesting, in the technical or functional descriptions,
the specifications of named brand products or suppliers. If that
seems too obvious to the keen observer in the market or media, you
ask for supplier- or brand-specific interoperability. A well-known
hoax has been the procurement of a new, government-wide desktop
solution. Here every supplier could deliver on the condition that it
provided interoperability with a named brand and product. So, anyone
can offer a car as long as it's BMW (or any other brand with similar
characteristics). And all calls for openness, clarity and
transparency on the policy involved is frustrated by all means to
cover any tracks.
How do we provide that
small and medium-sized enterprises, the biggest employer in Western
Europe, can simply do business with and for government? One example:
almost all requests for the delivery of software go to US-based
multinational companies, with one or two European exceptions. Aren't
we capable of developing software? Aren't we?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten