Liko, I do not fully agree with you on this. The client does not need to mention names or trademarks - when/if this is done:- - it amounts to direct marketing or campaign for that trademark, company or whatever - the choice of selecting/getting a superior solution is circumvented since such is only based on past knowledge However, the client must provide sufficient information regarding the existing environment to provide every bidder with same decision making information/tools. I am against organisations selecting solutions/products based on the knowledge of the staff they have rather this should be based on the solution that best fits the organisation. Staff can always be retrained. Rgds SK -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Liko Agosta Sent: 09 September 2008 23:21 To: skisonzo@gmail.com Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya Evans, That law should be changed :) If a government agency has already invested in some technology stack, they should have the right to say they want a solution that ran's on that technology stack ....lets says Microsoft SQL Server .. Why ... The license for SQL server will be a sunk cost at that point and getting different technology is making a bigger financial commitment and raising project risk .... also .. if the customers programmers/admins know C# and SQL Server or Websphere and DB2, the client has the right to pick that platform ... We have ran into this with our clients. Whenever we are doing project discovery, we will find out which technologies they currently have/support ... if a client has SQL Server, we will typical ask for usage reports for that SQL server box and in most cases, we have been able to save money by "adding to" their existing infrastructure ... or tuning their existing infrastructure to take more load. Many organizations we have worked with tend to buy a servers/software licenses for each project ... we advice against this and are usually for consolidation and better management. That way a 4 CPU license for SQL Server Enterprise Edition (approx USD 80,000) will be apportioned to the 20 systems or projects that will use a well tuned 4CPU SQL server .... So .. good intentions... bad law ... why enforce or spend time on it My 2 cents Liko Agosta, CEO Verviant Consulting Services. www.verviant.com   Phone    : 1-919-341-1820 Fax      : 1-978-268-8403   Toll Free: 1-866-551-4935   Pager: 9193891551@txt.att.net -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Evans Ikua Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:34 PM To: Liko Agosta Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya Interesting what Google can come up with: http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/052308-kenya-linux-group-challenges-proc urement.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news We finally got to meet with the PPOA on Friday, 5th September. We had a very fruitful discussion on the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005, whose provisions are being ignored by Government procurement agents: https://ict-innovation.fossfa.net/taxonomy/blog-tags/kenya This good law stipulates that procuring agents should not mention any trade marks, companies or product names when requesting for quotations. They are required to just give the specs of what they need to accomplish. But how many times do we see these RFQs with brand names such as Microsoft *?. This has got to stop and nobody has any excuse to break the law with impunity. We will be putting details of the proceedings on our website soon, and also in the media. -- Evans Ikua Linux Professional Association of Kenya Tel: +254-20-2250381, Cell: +254-722 955 831 Eagle House, 2nd Floor Kimathi Street, Opp. Corner House www.lpakenya.org _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: likoa@verviant.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/likoa%40verviant.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: skisonzo@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/skisonzo%40gmail.com

Evans ... We are a services company that provides both Closed Source and Open Source Consulting to clients .... We build on what clients have already paid for... We can discuss TCO ... Liko Agosta, CEO Verviant Consulting Services. www.verviant.com   Phone    : 1-919-341-1820 Fax      : 1-978-268-8403   Toll Free: 1-866-551-4935   Pager: 9193891551@txt.att.net -----Original Message----- From: Evans Ikua [mailto:ikua@lpakenya.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:48 AM To: Liko Agosta Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: RE: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya Liko, There is nothing wrong with the Law. It only needs to be followed. It actually has very good intentions of making sure that all (technology) suppliers get an equal opportunity to tender for a whatever it is. Mind you, once the tenders have been received and opened, the client is under no obligation to buy from anyone, not even the lowest price. Our argument is this; say a ministry wants to buy a SQL DB Server. They advertise this without mentioning MS SQL Server anywhere (that's what the law says). You quote your SQL Server at KSh 5.6m (you are a MS Gold Partner), and I quote my Open Source SQL server at 0.5m (I am only selling my services and not licenses). The tendering committee now has two options and the guys in IT can defend their choice of technology, and the TCO that goes with it, all the way from having to buy upgrade licenses a year later or so. Then the decision is made. At this point, nobody can come and tell them that they must buy this or that, its their decision. Important thing is that the management has seen all the options available. If this law is broken in your favour, I don't expect you to have a problem with it. You are happy. No? It is this that will raise management questions about the cost of license upgrades vis a vis the cost of migrating to FOSS products. A Ministry would save more by migrating to Scalix than upgrading to MS Exchange in the long term. But how does the accounting officer get to know this if the IT guy only requests a particular brand name, leaving out everyone else? For public institutions that are running on our taxes, we want to know that they are spending money prudently. They cant be given a blank cheque. -- Evans Ikua Linux Professional Association of Kenya Tel: +254-20-2250381, Cell: +254-722 955 831 Eagle House, 2nd Floor Kimathi Street, Opp. Corner House www.lpakenya.org Quoting Liko Agosta <likoa@verviant.com>:

Evans,

That law should be changed :)

If a government agency has already invested in some technology stack, they should have the right to say they want a solution that ran's on that technology stack ....lets says Microsoft SQL Server ..

Why ... The license for SQL server will be a sunk cost at that point and getting different technology is making a bigger financial commitment and raising project risk .... also .. if the customers programmers/admins know C# and SQL Server or Websphere and DB2, the client has the right to pick that platform ...

We have ran into this with our clients. Whenever we are doing project discovery, we will find out which technologies they currently have/support ... if a client has SQL Server, we will typical ask for usage reports for that SQL server box and in most cases, we have been able to save money by "adding to" their existing infrastructure ... or tuning their existing infrastructure to take more load.

Many organizations we have worked with tend to buy a servers/software licenses for each project ... we advice against this and are usually for consolidation and better management. That way a 4 CPU license for SQL Server Enterprise Edition (approx USD 80,000) will be apportioned to the 20 systems or projects that will use a well tuned 4CPU SQL server ....

So .. good intentions... bad law ... why enforce or spend time on it

My 2 cents

Liko Agosta, CEO Verviant Consulting Services.

www.verviant.com Phone : 1-919-341-1820 Fax : 1-978-268-8403 Toll Free: 1-866-551-4935 Pager: 9193891551@txt.att.net

-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Evans Ikua Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:34 PM To: Liko Agosta Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya

Interesting what Google can come up with:

http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/052308-kenya-linux-group-challenges-proc

urement.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news

We finally got to meet with the PPOA on Friday, 5th September. We had a very fruitful discussion on the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005, whose provisions are being ignored by Government procurement agents:

https://ict-innovation.fossfa.net/taxonomy/blog-tags/kenya

This good law stipulates that procuring agents should not mention any trade marks, companies or product names when requesting for quotations. They are required to just give the specs of what they need to accomplish. But how many times do we see these RFQs with brand names such as Microsoft *?. This has got to stop and nobody has any excuse to break the law with impunity.

We will be putting details of the proceedings on our website soon, and also in the media.

-- Evans Ikua Linux Professional Association of Kenya Tel: +254-20-2250381, Cell: +254-722 955 831 Eagle House, 2nd Floor Kimathi Street, Opp. Corner House www.lpakenya.org

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: likoa@verviant.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/likoa%40verviant.com

I had a chance to attend the presentations by Alex and Evans to PPOA and I think they did a very good job articulating issues faced in Government ICT Procurement. In addition to procuring agents not following the law (e.g. mentioning brands in tenders) it also appears that they are not aware of International Best Practices such as those advocated by WITSA ([1]http://www.witsa.org/papers/BestPracticesWhitePaper-final.pdf ). Those best practices are meant to ensure competition is not precluded. Maybe these IBPs require to be incorporated into the PPOA regulations. I reproduce a portion of the IBPs below: The Government ICT Procurement Process The procurement process consists of a number of steps: * Needs Definition / Requirements * Request for Information (RFI) * Request for Comments * Request for Proposal * Proposal * Live Test and Demonstration * Best and Final Offer * Award * Protest Procedures Depending on the size and complexity of the procurement, a given acquisition may contain some or all of these stages. Need The acquisition process begins with the recognition of a need by a governmental department for a capability or a service. This need must then be translated into a set of requirements so that eventually a Request for Proposal (RFP) may be issued. The scope of this effort is generally invisible to potential bidders. Request for Information (RFI) During this phase of the procurement, government actively pursues business input in the form of recommendations and presentations. The input is generally solicited by the means of an RFI that describes the government’s needs and perceived requirements. If done in a manner other than an RFI, governments should be careful that their solicitation does not have the effect of precluding competition. Business thus has the opportunity to better understand the requirements and the true needs of the end user. During this stage, communication is open, and both industry and the government are exploring needs and possible relevant technologies. If it has not already done so, business is also beginning to assess potential partners. Request for Comments (RFC) An RFC on a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) is generally the next document that the government issues. It is based on the input that the government has gathered during the RFI stage and is based on a refinement of their needs and available technologies. Again, governments should ensure that the RFC is issued in an open and transparent manner so that it does not have the effect of precluding competition. In addition, if governments use a contractor to help in writing an RFC, or later the actual RFP, that contractor should be precluded from bidding either alone or as a partner in the actual procurement, Ideally the RFC is a complete document outlining not only the agency’s needs but also the proposed terms and conditions for the contract. While it takes considerable effort for the governmental entity to produce a complete document at this stage, it ultimately saves considerable time and effort for both parties later on. In addition, a complete document sends a signal to industry that the government is serious and that the acquisition is for “real”. Unavailability of information at this stage, and the inability to comment on it, often causes misunderstandings and delay later on in the procurement process. Request for Proposal (RFP) Ideally, the acquiring governmental entity will have indicated in the RFC a proposed schedule for the release of the RFP, and they will adhere to it. As the proposed release date draws near, potential bidders will firm up bidding partners and will begin to staff their proposal efforts. In order to keep ultimate costs down, government needs to adhere to their proposed timeframes because delays and/or extensions at this point become quite expensive for industry, and those costs are ultimately passed on to the government. It is important that governments allow ample time for firms to prepare their proposals and also take into consideration that foreign bidders may need additional time than would a national entity. Proposal The proposal contains the bidder’s proposed technical solution, management approach, and cost. Proposals usually contain very sensitive, and often confidential, commercial information. It is important that proposals be treated carefully by governments to insure that this sensitive information is not released to competitors. While often delivery of the technical, management and cost proposals are requested simultaneously, government could save money, and often time, by requiring the cost proposal two to three weeks after the others. Late changes by bidders to their technical proposals are often not adequately incorporated into the cost proposal causing later disagreements and delays. As the government reviews the proposals, they may request clarifications or additional information from bidders. Due to the sensitivity of interactions with bidders at this stage, it is important that this be done formally in writing and with good documentation maintained. Live Test and Demonstration (LTD) On very large and/or complex procurements, the government may require that a Live Test and Demonstration or Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD) be performed to demonstrate and validate the proposed technologies. Governments should provide bidders selected for an LTD as much time as possible to prepare. Bidders must obtain appropriate space, bring in required hardware and equipment, assemble the right software and assemble staff for the LTD. LTDs and OCDs are very expensive efforts for the bidders and for the government that sometimes must assemble large, skilled evaluation teams. Thus they should be required sparingly and in very select situations. Best and Final Offer (BAFO) Once the proposal has been submitted and the LTD, if required has been performed, bidders begin to finalize the prices from their vendors, subcontractors and bidding partners and to fine-tune their own costs. The BAFO will also incorporate any changes indicated by the LTD and any clarifications that may have been requested from the government during their review of the technical and management proposal. Award The award process consists of informing the selected bidder of their success, and, more importantly, informing the losing bidders of the reasons they were not selected. Being open and sensitive during this process is important and can help avoid later problems and protests. Losing bidders want to understand in as much detail as possible areas where their proposals were deficient. Providing the information at this time will allow them to improve their processes for their next effort and also assures them that the process was transparent and fair. If bidders feel information is being withheld, it raises their suspicions about the entire process and may lead to a formal Protest simply as a means of acquiring more information. Protest A formal protest procedure to higher authority and ultimately to an independent authority is important to providing an open, accessible, fair, transparent and documented procurement process. This provides an opportunity for bidders to be heard and to receive an explanation of why a given bid was turned down. Protesting is a significant event that bidders do not take lightly. The process is expensive for both the bidder and the government, ties up critical resources, and potentially negatively impacts the image of the bidder in the eyes of the government. However, an effective protest process will help maintain competition in current and future procurements. On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT), "wesley kiriinya" <kiriinya2000 @yahoo.com> said: I think there are two things in this argument. First when a company/gvmnt is buying the back end/base software e.g. a database/operating systems. I agree that "...procuring agents should not mention any trade marks, companies or product names when requesting for quotations..." Second when a company/gvmnt is buying middle level software that should operate with the back end software and in this case I think that the procuring agents should atleast mention what the back end software is. This is useful information to anyone willing to submit a quotation. Regards. 8~) I don't want to go to Hell, I don't want to stay on Earth, but what I'm I going to do in Heaven. --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Liko Agosta <likoa@verviant.com> wrote: From: Liko Agosta <likoa@verviant.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 10:09 AM Evans ... We are a services company that provides both Closed Source and Open Sourc e Consulting to clients .... We build on what clients have already paid for... We can discuss TCO ... Liko Agosta, CEO Verviant Consulting Services. www.verviant.com Phone : 1-919-341-1820 Fax : 1-978-268-8403 Toll Free: 1-866-551-4935 Pager: 9193891551@txt.att.net -----Original Message----- From: Evans Ikua [mailto:ikua@lpakenya.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:48 AM To: Liko Agosta Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: RE: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya Liko, There is nothing wrong with the Law. It only needs to be followed. It actually has very good intentions of making sure that all (technology) suppliers get an equal opportunity to tender for a whatever it is. Mind you, once the tenders have been received and opened, the client is under no obligation to buy from anyone, not even the lowest price. Our argument is this; say a ministry wants to buy a SQL DB Server. They advertise this without mentioning MS SQL Server anywhere (that's what the law says). You quote your SQL Server at KSh 5.6m (you are a MS Gold Partner), and I quote my Open Source SQL server at 0.5m (I am only selling my services and not licenses). The tendering committee now has two options and the guys in IT can defend their choice of technology, and the TCO that goes with it, all the way from having to buy upgrade licenses a year later or so. Then the decision is made. At this point, nobody can come and tell them that they must buy this or that, its their decision. Important thing is that the management has seen all the options available. If this law is broken in your favour, I don't expect you to have a problem with it. You are happy. No? It is this that will raise management questions about the cost of license upgrades vis a vis the cost of migrating to FOSS products. A Ministry would save more by migrating to Scalix than upgrading to MS Exchange in the long term. But how does the accounting officer get to know this if the IT guy only requests a particular brand name, leaving out everyone else? For public institutions that are running on our taxes, we want to know that they are spending money prudently. They cant be given a blank cheque. -- Evans Ikua Linux Professional Association of Kenya Tel: +254-20-2250381, Cell: +254-722 955 831 Eagle House, 2nd Floor Kimathi Street, Opp. Corner House www.lpakenya.org Quoting Liko Agosta <likoa@verviant.com>:

Evans,

That law should be changed :)

If a government agency has already invested in some technology stack, t hey should have the right to say they want a solution that ran's on that technology stack ....lets says Microsoft SQL Server ..

Why ... The license for SQL server will be a sunk cost at that point an d getting different technology is making a bigger financial commitment an d raising project risk .... also .. if the customers programmers/admins k now C# and SQL Server or Websphere and DB2, the client has the right to pic k that platform ...

We have ran into this with our clients. Whenever we are doing project discovery, we will find out which technologies they currently have/supp ort ... if a client has SQL Server, we will typical ask for usage reports f or that SQL server box and in most cases, we have been able to save money by "adding to" their existing infrastructure ... or tuning their existing infrastructure to take more load.

Many organizations we have worked with tend to buy a servers/software licenses for each project ... we advice against this and are usually fo r consolidation and better management. That way a 4 CPU license for SQL Server Enterprise Edition (approx USD 80,000) will be apportioned to the 20 systems or projects that will use a well tuned 4CPU SQL server ....

So .. good intentions... bad law ... why enforce or spend time on it

My 2 cents

Liko Agosta, CEO Verviant Consulting Services.

www.verviant.com Phone : 1-919-341-1820 Fax : 1-978-268-8403 Toll Free: 1-866-551-4935 Pager: 9193891551@txt.att.net

-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+likoa=verviant.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Evans Ikua Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:34 PM To: Liko Agosta Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: [kictanet] Software procurement in kenya

Interesting what Google can come up with:

http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/052308-kenya-linux-group-challenges-p roc

urement.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news

We finally got to meet with the PPOA on Friday, 5th September. We had a very fruitful discussion on the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005, whose provisions are being ignored by Government procurement agents:

https://ict-innovation.fossfa.net/taxonomy/blog-tags/kenya

This good law stipulates that procuring agents should not mention any trade marks, companies or product names when requesting for quotations. They are required to just give the specs of what they need to accomplish. But how many times do we see these RFQs with brand names such as Microsoft *?. This has got to stop and nobody has any excuse to break the law with impunity.

We will be putting details of the proceedings on our website soon, and also in the media.

-- Evans Ikua Linux Professional Association of Kenya Tel: +254-20-2250381, Cell: +254-722 955 831 Eagle House, 2nd Floor Kimathi Street, Opp. Corner House www.lpakenya.org

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: likoa@verviant.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/likoa%40verviant.c om

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo .com References 1. http://www.witsa.org/papers/BestPracticesWhitePaper-final.pdf People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).