Public Procurement and Open Source - Lessons from Tenders of the Ministry of Communications
Native Communications Ministry tossed a new entertainment - published applications submitted by IT workers to the announced contest “The right to conclude a state contract for the provision of services for the development of a typical electronic document management system on free software based on the Ministry of Communications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation”.
Competition as a competition, for 5 lemons, in the technical task vaguely said “This document is a technical task for the development of a typical electronic document management system on free software (hereinafter referred to as OSS), supplied with open source code (hereinafter referred to as EDMS or system), and determines the purpose systems, goals of creation, requirements for software architecture and functional requirements for the system ... The system should use only open modern elements and technologies that meet the requirements international standards ... The system should support the work in the environment of freely distributed operating systems. ”Well, then point by point, what functions of workflow they need - those who work with government agencies, have already passed this all 150 times.
There would be nothing particularly remarkable about this if the Ministry of Communications did not post on the website of public procurement not only its own documentation, as it should be according to the law, but all tender bids. FZ-94 does not require this, we note. But openness is so open, in an adult way. “So that everyone’s foolishness was visible,” not otherwise.
')
And the stupidity there, as even a cursory acquaintance with applications shows, is so much so that half of the IT market is brutal, and the second half is scratching a turnip, trying to solve this rebus.
First, we look at the list of applicants for sovereign money and how much each of them wants for their services:
JSC Industrial Information Systems - 1.5 million rubles.
Basic Technologies LLC - 5 million rubles.
ZAO IT Co. Information technologies "- 30 000 rub.
LLC "Research and Production Center" 1C "- 1.8 million rubles.
CJSC Aplana Software - 2 million rubles.
ZAO LANIT - 2 million rubles.
CJSC “Armada Soft” - 1.398 million rubles.
The first thing that catches your eye is the price of the application from “IT”. Immediately the question arises - who was mistaken in two orders, “IT” in a hurry, or those, who laid out the documentation on the site? In any case, in official tender documents, such mistakes, and even in the price point, are blatant disorder.
Okay, we go further. 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 it’s some unknown, but still heroes. We read the application or something, for verification.
The first lined up the request of St. Petersburg PromInformSystem. This ... this, I tell you, is generally beyond good and evil. It seems that people got hung up with fun mushrooms and smoked at the same time, and at night before the deadline they piled on the knee that came to mind. Of course, we all understand that there are clouds of one-day companies dumping at tenders in the market, but one and a half lemons are still not such a dumping. It is unlikely that the guys from this cohort. In general, nonsense, just nonsense, not an application.
“Basic technologies” decided not to be shy of their obscurity, they rolled out the price to the maximum. In the application - mostly common words about how everything will be flexible, scaled, made according to customer requirements and other empty air, plus a list of the usual functionality of workflow systems. SPO is mentioned. Already two times: “The database level is represented by the database of the EnterpriseDB DBMS (Postgres Plus Advanced Server v8.3 Release 2)” and “For the organization of the search, the Solr solution from the Apache Software Foundation is used”. But then you stumble over the phrase “The system is oriented towards the support of the MS Internet Explorer web browser”. Hmm? Is this an open technology or open source software, as required in the technical specification? And what, even under Firefox - absolutely no way to master?
In general, 30 pages of good-quality text is about nothing.
Open the application "IT" and ... something strange ... as if it was already somewhere? Oh, so this is the application of “Basic Technologies”! Only painted on 60 pages already, with beautiful pictures and more concrete. And with names like Apache, JBoss Enterprise Portal, Postgres Plus, Firestone's postscript to IE in a short list of browsers, implementation methodology, GOSTs and other attributes of a normal tender application.
One gets the feeling that the “Basic Technologies” was written off from “IT”, having thrown half away, not really thinking about the importance of the discarded. Or both companies draw from some one source of tender wisdom - each according to their own understanding. We will not assume the worst, right? Because for the worst since November 1, it is no longer an administrative, but a criminal article up to 7 years.
Anyway, in the “IT Co.” application, such phrases as “The system will provide the ability to work in networks both with the deployed MS Active Directory infrastructure and without it (in workgroups)” are found, in addition to the mentioned ACT. Why normal directories are not mentioned is unknown. Why there are no open document formats in the DOCUMENT TURN-based 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 the prices in the text of the application “IT” is not, which is very strange and wrong. So we can assume that “IT” is ready to establish 700 jobs for 30 thousand rubles LOL.
Another contestant, Aplana, as I recall, was part of the IT Group. The presence of their side by side in one tender looks, to put it mildly, strange. Either they have gone so far that they can now act as direct competitors, or ... again bad thoughts come to mind. Moreover, the applications of these companies are almost identical. Here, except that “Aplana” on the 58th page says: HERE IT IS REALLY REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE REPORTS GENERATOR THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLYING ON ANY OS AND WILL BE IN OPEN SOURCES !!!
Guys, don't scream like that. If you finish everything at the last moment, there is a high risk to fly because of nonsense.
The application “Aplans” was rejected on the formal grounds - not stitched, not signed, etc.
Application "1C" at a glance recalls the flagship product. A table like accounting, only less readable, because the text, not numbers. But it is not touching. With a consistent presentation of the types of work, titles of works and methods, “1C” without further ado writes that he will conduct an “Expert evaluation of the appropriateness of using open-source software technologies and technological solutions for building scalable systems”.
Indeed, what's the difference that the customer requests an open source software. Experts know better whether this is the best ACT! They know and will teach the customer how to. And already in paragraph 3 of the submitted application, we see:
3.1 Purchase of licensed software for workplaces
3.1.1 Selection of licensed software for workplaces with support for EDS of the EDMS segments.
3.1.2 Purchase of licensed software for workplaces with support for EDS of the EDMS segments.
How?? Did the experts feel that using open source software was inappropriate? Or do they know in advance that this software will be, albeit open source, but paid? And 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 installation of software on an automated workplace of users of EDMS.
3.3.1 Compiling a set of tools for installing software on the automated workplace of the users of the EDS.
Methods: Technological reception "Configuring the system" 1C: Document 8.2 "open source based on the technological platform 1C: Enterprise 8"
Generally, admirable, I think. “Sleight of hand and no fraud”. With an easy movement, all the wealth of choice turns ... into 1C: Enterprise, of course! Do not even immediately notice how you gracefully brought to this point. Applause.
Well, 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 can such a development be considered an open source software, as stated in the competitive TK? How flexible can this definition in principle be to use it in this way? Here we come up against a crucial point, which, perhaps, will continue to determine the entire game on open-source gostenders.
The application of “Armada” is not interesting at all - this offspring of RBC is usually not seen in anything adequate. One-to-one sentence like 1C, only half a lemon is cheaper (which is also funny, but it’s understandable - in 1C, at least one hand was filled with implementations, and contacting Armada is still entertainment).
LANIT stayed. Here, everything is more or less distinct, with a specific enumeration, on which the system will work: 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 from the contestants bothered), OS (Windows 2003, RHEL, SLES, Fedora Linux), IBM server platform, which is logical - normal certification and support for Linux solutions that should be important for the state customer. In general, people know what they are talking about. Only one thing is not clear - the actual SED, which LANIT offers, the Core Process, as they claim, is free. However, I still could not find the source code.
In general, a good idea for the communications ministry came to mind, the application to fully publish. So. You see, the wide IT community will begin to better understand who is on the IT market. And integrators will continue to be ashamed of arranging such a shameless farce from contests and will not drag on a tender in which open source open-source software, its open-source software, will be written. It is clear that companies still lack real expertise on open source software, and I really want to make money on this topic, but this is not a reason to act so brazenly, and not even bother to study existing open source software solutions.
However, the Ministry of Communications also needs to be ground definitions. Because the current version of the tender documentation, which is not sufficiently well-written, allows the open source development of integrators to be poured in on a sly - and this is albeit an open, but not freely distributed code. And this is fundamentally important, because if there is no development and support community, the government customer will remain tied to one supplier, no matter how many lines of code he provides to him.
And the main mystery - why no one, neither these seven applicants, nor the real SPO companies, absolutely no one offered to the Alfresco 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 already just lazy!
Your versions of what is happening?
And I stock up on popcorn pending the decision of the tender commission and the continuation of publications from the Ministry of Communications. Especially since this series is scheduled for the next competition - this time for 14 million rubles., Research work on open source software.
Competition as a competition, for 5 lemons, in the technical task vaguely said “This document is a technical task for the development of a typical electronic document management system on free software (hereinafter referred to as OSS), supplied with open source code (hereinafter referred to as EDMS or system), and determines the purpose systems, goals of creation, requirements for software architecture and functional requirements for the system ... The system should use only open modern elements and technologies that meet the requirements international standards ... The system should support the work in the environment of freely distributed operating systems. ”Well, then point by point, what functions of workflow they need - those who work with government agencies, have already passed this all 150 times.
There would be nothing particularly remarkable about this if the Ministry of Communications did not post on the website of public procurement not only its own documentation, as it should be according to the law, but all tender bids. FZ-94 does not require this, we note. But openness is so open, in an adult way. “So that everyone’s foolishness was visible,” not otherwise.
')
And the stupidity there, as even a cursory acquaintance with applications shows, is so much so that half of the IT market is brutal, and the second half is scratching a turnip, trying to solve this rebus.
First, we look at the list of applicants for sovereign money and how much each of them wants for their services:
JSC Industrial Information Systems - 1.5 million rubles.
Basic Technologies LLC - 5 million rubles.
ZAO IT Co. Information technologies "- 30 000 rub.
LLC "Research and Production Center" 1C "- 1.8 million rubles.
CJSC Aplana Software - 2 million rubles.
ZAO LANIT - 2 million rubles.
CJSC “Armada Soft” - 1.398 million rubles.
The first thing that catches your eye is the price of the application from “IT”. Immediately the question arises - who was mistaken in two orders, “IT” in a hurry, or those, who laid out the documentation on the site? In any case, in official tender documents, such mistakes, and even in the price point, are blatant disorder.
Okay, we go further. 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 it’s some unknown, but still heroes. We read the application or something, for verification.
The first lined up the request of St. Petersburg PromInformSystem. This ... this, I tell you, is generally beyond good and evil. It seems that people got hung up with fun mushrooms and smoked at the same time, and at night before the deadline they piled on the knee that came to mind. Of course, we all understand that there are clouds of one-day companies dumping at tenders in the market, but one and a half lemons are still not such a dumping. It is unlikely that the guys from this cohort. In general, nonsense, just nonsense, not an application.
“Basic technologies” decided not to be shy of their obscurity, they rolled out the price to the maximum. In the application - mostly common words about how everything will be flexible, scaled, made according to customer requirements and other empty air, plus a list of the usual functionality of workflow systems. SPO is mentioned. Already two times: “The database level is represented by the database of the EnterpriseDB DBMS (Postgres Plus Advanced Server v8.3 Release 2)” and “For the organization of the search, the Solr solution from the Apache Software Foundation is used”. But then you stumble over the phrase “The system is oriented towards the support of the MS Internet Explorer web browser”. Hmm? Is this an open technology or open source software, as required in the technical specification? And what, even under Firefox - absolutely no way to master?
In general, 30 pages of good-quality text is about nothing.
Open the application "IT" and ... something strange ... as if it was already somewhere? Oh, so this is the application of “Basic Technologies”! Only painted on 60 pages already, with beautiful pictures and more concrete. And with names like Apache, JBoss Enterprise Portal, Postgres Plus, Firestone's postscript to IE in a short list of browsers, implementation methodology, GOSTs and other attributes of a normal tender application.
One gets the feeling that the “Basic Technologies” was written off from “IT”, having thrown half away, not really thinking about the importance of the discarded. Or both companies draw from some one source of tender wisdom - each according to their own understanding. We will not assume the worst, right? Because for the worst since November 1, it is no longer an administrative, but a criminal article up to 7 years.
Anyway, in the “IT Co.” application, such phrases as “The system will provide the ability to work in networks both with the deployed MS Active Directory infrastructure and without it (in workgroups)” are found, in addition to the mentioned ACT. Why normal directories are not mentioned is unknown. Why there are no open document formats in the DOCUMENT TURN-based 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 the prices in the text of the application “IT” is not, which is very strange and wrong. So we can assume that “IT” is ready to establish 700 jobs for 30 thousand rubles LOL.
Another contestant, Aplana, as I recall, was part of the IT Group. The presence of their side by side in one tender looks, to put it mildly, strange. Either they have gone so far that they can now act as direct competitors, or ... again bad thoughts come to mind. Moreover, the applications of these companies are almost identical. Here, except that “Aplana” on the 58th page says: HERE IT IS REALLY REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE REPORTS GENERATOR THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLYING ON ANY OS AND WILL BE IN OPEN SOURCES !!!
Guys, don't scream like that. If you finish everything at the last moment, there is a high risk to fly because of nonsense.
The application “Aplans” was rejected on the formal grounds - not stitched, not signed, etc.
Application "1C" at a glance recalls the flagship product. A table like accounting, only less readable, because the text, not numbers. But it is not touching. With a consistent presentation of the types of work, titles of works and methods, “1C” without further ado writes that he will conduct an “Expert evaluation of the appropriateness of using open-source software technologies and technological solutions for building scalable systems”.
Indeed, what's the difference that the customer requests an open source software. Experts know better whether this is the best ACT! They know and will teach the customer how to. And already in paragraph 3 of the submitted application, we see:
3.1 Purchase of licensed software for workplaces
3.1.1 Selection of licensed software for workplaces with support for EDS of the EDMS segments.
3.1.2 Purchase of licensed software for workplaces with support for EDS of the EDMS segments.
How?? Did the experts feel that using open source software was inappropriate? Or do they know in advance that this software will be, albeit open source, but paid? And 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 installation of software on an automated workplace of users of EDMS.
3.3.1 Compiling a set of tools for installing software on the automated workplace of the users of the EDS.
Methods: Technological reception "Configuring the system" 1C: Document 8.2 "open source based on the technological platform 1C: Enterprise 8"
Generally, admirable, I think. “Sleight of hand and no fraud”. With an easy movement, all the wealth of choice turns ... into 1C: Enterprise, of course! Do not even immediately notice how you gracefully brought to this point. Applause.
Well, 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 can such a development be considered an open source software, as stated in the competitive TK? How flexible can this definition in principle be to use it in this way? Here we come up against a crucial point, which, perhaps, will continue to determine the entire game on open-source gostenders.
The application of “Armada” is not interesting at all - this offspring of RBC is usually not seen in anything adequate. One-to-one sentence like 1C, only half a lemon is cheaper (which is also funny, but it’s understandable - in 1C, at least one hand was filled with implementations, and contacting Armada is still entertainment).
LANIT stayed. Here, everything is more or less distinct, with a specific enumeration, on which the system will work: 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 from the contestants bothered), OS (Windows 2003, RHEL, SLES, Fedora Linux), IBM server platform, which is logical - normal certification and support for Linux solutions that should be important for the state customer. In general, people know what they are talking about. Only one thing is not clear - the actual SED, which LANIT offers, the Core Process, as they claim, is free. However, I still could not find the source code.
In general, a good idea for the communications ministry came to mind, the application to fully publish. So. You see, the wide IT community will begin to better understand who is on the IT market. And integrators will continue to be ashamed of arranging such a shameless farce from contests and will not drag on a tender in which open source open-source software, its open-source software, will be written. It is clear that companies still lack real expertise on open source software, and I really want to make money on this topic, but this is not a reason to act so brazenly, and not even bother to study existing open source software solutions.
However, the Ministry of Communications also needs to be ground definitions. Because the current version of the tender documentation, which is not sufficiently well-written, allows the open source development of integrators to be poured in on a sly - and this is albeit an open, but not freely distributed code. And this is fundamentally important, because if there is no development and support community, the government customer will remain tied to one supplier, no matter how many lines of code he provides to him.
And the main mystery - why no one, neither these seven applicants, nor the real SPO companies, absolutely no one offered to the Alfresco 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 already just lazy!
Your versions of what is happening?
And I stock up on popcorn pending the decision of the tender commission and the continuation of publications from the Ministry of Communications. Especially since this series is scheduled for the next competition - this time for 14 million rubles., Research work on open source software.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/76787/
All Articles