Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

brendansudol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#131

Post by Kiro »

sailfast wrote: post #71
Kiro wrote: post #34

This happens all the time with public procurements in Sweden. It's not uncommon to see negative bids as well. After you've got the contract you can bill them for service hours etc so it's a win anyway.

Do you think bids would come in negatively for Firm Fixed-Price work. In this case (micro-purchase), you are not allowed to bill again for the same service so the $1 is pretty much where you stop, unless further contract work is pursued which can take months. Genuinely curious.

Sure, that could be a solution. The problem I see is that any future work is more or less guaranteed to go to the winning company (because of system lock-in, knowledge etc). So if you're a big company who can afford the upfront loss you can still cash in in the future. Having the government as a permanent customer is more or less the dream. I'm no expert though.

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#132

Post by thaumasiotes »

celticninja wrote: post #106
ksk wrote: post #20

Working for free is a luxury for the people not struggling to ends meet. "Oh, I already got paid elsewhere, but let me work for free and outbid others who are doing this as their primary job" is the unstated context and it feels a tad bit smug and elitist. Personally, I think that the goal should be to get paid while you work on open source. But, I know that its not an option for everyone. >I use open source technolo…

Perhaps but I imagine people would not willingly produce something for free if it was the private sector. The fact it is government and taxes pay for it, therefore you and me pay for it, there should be no problem in getting it done for free(essentially). Would it be better to pay a company $500, of which $150 goes to the dev and $350 to company coffers?

When Microsoft let volunteers supply photos for new default Windows backgrounds, there was incredible outrage among professional photographers. People who are not professional photographers can usually see that better images at lower cost is a good thing and not a bad one.

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#133

Post by Kalium »

iaw wrote: post #122
Kalium wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not mad at the guy, he can do whatever he wants. It's just kind of a crappy thing to do knowingly to other people and, if widespread, could have some strange externalities. I'm confused by this. According to this logic, it's a crappy thing to do to undercut anyone, ever, in any circumstance. Is that what you think?

No, I think under most circumstances it's completely fine to undercut someone. I think it's a crappy thing to do when someone is trying to participate in the market as a contractor and someone else as a volunteer. This individual could have volunteered on any project but instead chose to participate in a bid based market for contractors at an effective $0 rate. Presuming those contractors will only contribute to Open…

I believe I understand your position. In a situation where a project is open for market-rate bidding, you believe that only people looking to profit should bid. To do otherwise is more than rude, it hurts someone trying to make rent. I don't agree, for several reasons.

First, I think that because the goal here is a public good. As a result, civic engagement in the form of volunteerism is something to be welcomed and encouraged. Volunteerism in public good production is a net win, as it frees up resources for other uses where volunteer labor is not available. This could easily include paying contractors to write Open Source software, leading to a net increase in the production of Open Source software. The goal is a maximum of production of public goods, not a maximum of employment of people to produce public goods.

Second, I do not think you like where this logic leads if applied with your caveats. By your logic, you should object to any non-profit performing service that are also performed by for-profit entities in the event that the former undercuts the latter for service recipients. Your logic requires you to object to free clinics, MSF, and food pantries. All participate in markets as volunteers where others are attempting to participate as for-profit actors. Do you think MSF is rude and inconsiderate?

Third, I do not think you have considered the practical implications of your proposal. How do you propose 18F determine which projects should be market-rate-only and which should be volunteer-only? Do you think there's reasonable any way of doing this that produces ideal or near-ideal outputs? I do not. Such a distinction is at best arbitrary.

To review, I understand your position. You hold that volunteers should not undercut for-profit contractors in market bidding scenarios. I disagree. The product here is a public good, and we wish to maximize production of public goods for a given cost. Further, any logic that requires you to object to MSF should be reconsidered. Finally, I hold your proposed alternative to be unworkable.

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#134

Post by orless »

pimlottc wrote: post #128
orless wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working for free is a luxury for the people not struggling to ends meet. Not necessarily, this may be also a valid profit-oriented strategy. My wife worked for ca. 8 month almost for free (for lowest rate allowed by the law) to get an entry in her CV which landed her on her next real money job.

Whether it's a good strategy is besides the point; it's still a luxury in that your wife had the means to live for 8 months without a substantial income. Some people don't have the safety net to be able to do that, even if they knew it would put them in a better position in the long run.

> Whether it's a good strategy is besides the point

It is my point that this may be a good strategy.

> it's still a luxury in that your wife had the means to live for 8 months without a substantial income

Spending 10k Euro on an audio system is a luxury, spending 10k Euro to get a better job is an investment with a pretty good ROI.

> Some people don't have the safety net to be able to do that, even if they knew it would put them in a better position in the long run.

Since for almost anything there will be people who can't afford it, so this argument makes everything a luxury.

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#135

Post by neltnerb »

wslack wrote: post #130
neltnerb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you've thought of this, but is it impossible to subcontract this out to a non-profit to increase flexibility in the details of how the work is done? I.e. same requirements, same constraints, but the non-profit is formally registered with GSA and handles payments to subcontractors rather than the sub getting it straight from the government?

18Fer here. Is this in regards to a bounty program or putting out specific microtasks?

The bounty program as a whole. Like when I worked at NREL they were government funded but on paper I think it looked like a subcontract to run the lab which was fully managed by another entity. NREL I'm sure can hire contractors, although I suppose they might have to be in GSA as well?

Re: 18F's Micro-Purchase Experiment: Why I Bid $1

#136

Post by crdb »

arglebarnacle wrote: post #107
mintplant wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope it's not dismantled by the next administration to come into power.

I think it's going to be safe. It demonstrably saves much much more than it costs, so conservatives will likely support it from a cost cutting/reducing government "waste" perspective. Liberals will support it because it's smart and makes government run better. I think only an extremely cynical view would suggest this program isn't safe, a view in which conservatives intentionally dismantle good cost-saving government…

Additional slightly paranoid alternatives:

- $1 IT contracts get in the way of crony overcharging, said cronies then provide campaign financing to the right people (never forget Accuweather paying Rick Santorum $50,000 to lobby to stop making National Weather Service data public);

- overcharging is how some intelligence services finance black ops (the modern Air America might be a press or marketing company) as France is alleged to be doing already (e.g. [1] for the full description)

In both cases, there would be powerful incentives to shut down "more efficient government IT" projects.

[1] http://www.amazon.fr/Missions-methodes-techniques-speciales-...

Post reply on HN