serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) (10/10/90)
In article <1028@dg.dg.com> ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: ...[Lots of lines deleted] >Case in point. I own (along with certain lending institutions >8-)) a house. I am having it painted. Before starting, I ...[Lots of lines deleted] >Sounds a lot like a government contract to me! I only hope >I've made a good choice and I monitor their progress as they Government contracting is not quite so simple. To stay with the analogy of painting a house, now instead of just watching the contractors to see what they do, you 1) Require they make written progress reports and hold a meeting (with view-graphs) for you and your uncle who knows all about painting houses. 2) Require that they buy paint and materials from a list of companies that you feel are acceptable (a certain percentage of which are "minority owned"). 3) Require the contractor to place ID tags on each peice of equipment he uses (ladders, brushes, etc.) and tell him how to keep track of that equipment because you expect that he will give you all that equipment after he completes the job (after all, you paid for that stuff). 4) Half way through the job you decide that no, you really wanted the house to be pink, not mauve. etc., etc. The point is, the government is not content to buy an end-product, it wants to buy a whole range of services and options. This is part of the reason that costs for government-procured systems are so high. Another two cents from --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu