An article in this morning’s National Post suggests that the federal government will be among the first to benefit from wireless number portability.
There is an RFP on the street for supplying the government with about 100,000 mobile devices (cel phones and PDAs) The government contract will be split between two providers, one bidder getting a guaranteed 60% of the business and the other 20%. The remaining 20% will be apportioned between the two.
An observer is quoted, suggesting that this approach is politically motivated:
… the contract’s structure suggests influence from political lobbying. If the government wanted to spur competition between providers and drive its cellphone bill lower, it should be looking to award its services to one company rather than two.
“It’s totally political… maybe the western half of politicians and government workers want to see Telus there and the eastern folks want to see Rogers or Bell. This is probably a compromise to avoid a lot of in-fighting that’s going on.”
I disagree.
Splitting the contract is an excellent way to buy communications services, especially mobile wireless, where network realities have proven that not all networks provide identical coverage. Under this type of contract, PWGSC will have the ability to ensure the suppliers stay sharp and competitive – always trying to increase their share of the 20,000 lines that are up for grabs.
If smart contracting is “totally political,” then I like those politics.