Last December, I wrote about some of the absurdities of government contracting that contributed to putting our department of national defense in a bind for its telecom network.
At issue has been the need for Bell to continue to provide services while TELUS implements its network.
Last week, the CRTC pronounced judgment on what Bell can charge the government for continuing to provide services because of a failure by the new supplier to meet the contractual terms for transition of the network.
In a single sentence, the CRTC sided with Bell:
The Panel has considered the issue in light of the submissions this morning, the clarifications and after due consideration is of the view that the offer as put forward by Bell this morning in accordance with the terms and the clarification given today is appropriate under the circumstances.
A day earlier, the Commission castigated a late TELUS attempt to change the Commission’s process:
The Commission notes that TELUS is a sophisticated and experienced participant in Commission proceedings and considers that it was incumbent on TELUS to make any objections known at the earliest possible opportunity and not on the eve of the Commission decision.
Although the indemnification terms between the government and TELUS are confidential, it is suspected that Bell’s fees will not be absorbed by the taxpayers. The size of the indemnity could significantly impact the shareholder value that could be generated from what was a celebrated $213M win in 2007.
In reviewing the transcripts, Public Works acknowledged that only Bell and TELUS bid on the contract, although Bell suggested that a third bidder might have participated, but declined because the RFP had stipulated a 1-year maximum for the network transition. Of course, the failure to meet the tight time requirement has been the heart of the dispute.
Complex networks need time to implement; even more time to migrate. With a network migration, the carriers have to keep service running despite all of the fingers that keep getting in the way. Think of redoing your bathroom while living in the house, versus doing the renovations before moving in.
Perhaps more time needs to be allocated for implementation. Clearly, customers need to ensure that flexibility is in place to transition at the end of the contract. Does the RFP process allow the bidders to propose new solutions, or is the solution predetermined. Too often, RFPs are really RFQs: competitive bidders are forced to quote on someone else’s optimal design.