WRITTEN ON February 22nd, 2006 BY Bob from Oz AND STORED IN Government Procurement

Our Customs Agency decided some years ago to develop a new inwards freight
clearance system. Despite the fact that every trading country in the world
probably has one of these, did they do initial research to identify best of
breed? No they didn’t! Did they assemble a short list of suppliers who may
have had experience in developing delivering similar best of breed
applications elsewhere in the world? No, they didn’t! Did they at least
seek out architects/designers of these types of systems? No they didn’t!

What did they do?

Well, they decided to spec the system in-house and then, using the good ol’
tender system, contracted various entities on the basis of lowest cost.

So, they developed something at lowest cost, did they?

Hardly! Each and every public sector project problem identified in the
McCartney Report arose and recurred, so that an initial estimate of around
$AUD30m blew out tenfold, and the project delays ran into years.

And this is after Customs went through extensive outsourcing procurements in
the mid-90’s

Normally, I am totally opposed to capital or even corporal punishment, but
this sort of active negligence really tempts me.

I hope the Wibbis are fairly obvious, but to spell them out:

Most governments are doing the same thing — in tax collection, benefits
payments, audit and so-on; look for best of breed. Taxpayers are not
technologically patriotic.

There are firms that have had experience in building and delivering these
systems; a list of these should be the starting point for procurement.

Push the project ownership and risk reporting right up the organisation, and
ensure political accountability to the taxpayer (ok, perhaps it might be
easier to reintroduce corporal punishment..!)