Digital Savant

By Pranav Patel

June 16, 2009 12:28 AM | Link to this

Cignex itself is a very shoddy company. They follow very bad employee poaching practices in Ahmedabad.

Historically, their board member Rajeev Srivastava has got a very bad name of taking away company's HR records and engaging third party agencies to hire out from your company.

If you bring Cignex on board, your are likely to lose critical resources.

By back to the future

March 27, 2009 11:59 PM | Link to this

Plone? Awesome. Maybe all the city offices can upgrade to Windows 95 now.

By Cruce Saunders

March 27, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this

I call for a do-over. Build a more transparent, open process. The City of Austin deserves the best possible outcome for it's next generation website. Many of the concerns go to whether the selected firm will deliver the best Austin web property. It's a big job, and done right will help lead the city. The argument against entitlement is right on. Local is best, but shouldn't be only deciding factor. However, there are many smart experienced people here who can help the City arrive the optimal solution.

By Chris Almond

March 27, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

Copied from a blog posted by LinearB at GeekAustin.org on the same topic:
=========
As a follow up to the earlier post on GeekAustin today: I received the following note from Brewster McCracken’s office:

“Investing taxpayer funds for web operations only makes sense if the investment dramatically improves government efficiency and stimulates the local economy. I am not satisfied that the website redesign proposal before Council meets either objective. Therefore, I cannot support the current proposal to spend over $700,000 on a website redesign.

“My specific concerns include:

• a new website must make it possible for citizens to pay their bills online, including by credit card

• a new website must make it possible for citizens to obtain any service online for which they currently have to drive to a government office or conduct by telephone

• any new website proposal must be part of a comprehensive government efficiency improvement effort

• given Austin’s significant local talent pool in website architecture and software, any new website solicitation must include aggressive outreach to local companies. If at all possible and financially feasible, we should tap local talent and support the local economy.”
=======

By CC

March 27, 2009 12:28 AM | Link to this

From my understanding of it (which might be a little flawed) buying on the GSA schedule means that the contract has already been established/negotiated and is believed to be the best one. It's mostly used for "out of the box" solutions/one time buys.

Cignex has a proven track record implementing Plone. I'd assume that the reason why CoA contacted them about rewriting the RFP was to make sure they were going to be asking the right questions and what features they could skip on without losing flexibility. I'm guessing, anyway. I seem to recall in the AustinGO meetings there was a Plone consultant trying to help them gather requirements. Maybe that was Cignex? Don't remember now.

Also, I don't think either companies would receive a response to their bid until the bid has been awarded, which it hasn't. It was just the suggestion to the Council. Once the Council approved it, you probably would've gotten a call. I don't remember if every bid I did back in the day was responded to without logging in to check the system.

By Angelia McFarland

March 26, 2009 8:34 PM | Link to this

I must disclose that I am the sole consultant from EOP Media and was most likely the bid that was thrown out not because we were non-compliant but because I don't generate the revenue the city believes I need to do the work. My firm was compliant because I submitted the required documents. I can accept that the city doesn't want to invest such a large project with a small firm but I was never notified that my bid was thrown out. I found out by reading all the news reports.

But now, Let's set the record straight. The city has bid this project at least 5 times under 2 different RFP numbers starting in April of 2007. (I have all 5 bids in soft copy just in case anyone is interested.)

The issue is that the city knew exactly what they wanted and it was Cignex. Cignex was hired to complete a strategic assessment after the cancellation of the third bid and (surprise) there were changes to the next bid..maybe based on the requirements that Cignex defined????

Also of concern, the city council approved a recommendation in April 2008 to award Cignex a $1.2M contract under the GSA schedule WITHOUT going to bid. Isn't it interesting the 1.2M was an OK figure in April but now the right number is $700K. Don't be fooled Austin. I read the requirements no one can do a good job for $700K and even Cignex knows that. If they receive this bid, they WILL come back for an amendment.

Also of interest, the August bid was rebid in late 2008 because there were NO compliant bids received and NONE of the respondents (including Cignex) submitted the required bid bond. So the city rebid and removed the requirement for the bid bond.

I agree with all the comments that the firms in Austin dropped the ball we should have been in the office of city leaders selling the right solution and letting them know that a website is not the responsibility of the IT department. The website is a remote version of city hall providing access for citizens and visitors. The website is the responsibility of EVERYONE at the city and requires more than a technical solution. More importantly, constituent RESEARCH should drive the solution not the technology.

By CC

March 26, 2009 5:18 PM | Link to this

Keep Austin Disingenuous, Mr. Golab.

Seriously, the City of Austin didn't suggest the contract go to Cignex because Austin didn't have talent. They suggested Cignex because YOU WERE TOO EXPENSIVE.

How hard is that to comprehend? I'm sorry, but your pro-Austin rhetoric isn't worth 600k TAXPAYER dollars. Austin needs that money for something other than lining your pockets.

If FG Squared hadn't come in at nearly TWICE the price, you'd have something worth debating.

City-issued RFPs are what they are. If you want to know how they got that way, I suggest you look at a history book instead of a Facebook once in a while.

So my question to you is, knowing what you know now, would you bid closer to 700k? Or do you want to "refine the process" so that the City of Austin pays more for the site?

By Charlie Fern

March 26, 2009 5:06 PM | Link to this

Mr. Almond, You did a good job summing up one of the arguments the local firms who did submit an RFP had, which is that Austin has a wealth of high-tech talent and capability (proven by successful large-scale projects - and yes, SXSWi) right here -- some within walking distance of the city's offices!

Austin businesses WANT to work with the city. And they are willing to form powerful, creative, collaborative partnerships to get the job done - on time, and within the budget. And at the end of the day, when the work is done, we won't pack up and leave the state. We LIVE here. We will be using the Web site ourselves. We are accountable and we care about what happens in our community.

And there's more to the argument that I hope people will consider. The city needs to do a better job of communicating with its own community. And they darn sure need to give local businesses a seat at the table when those local businesses have expertise that can be used to make this town a better place to live and work.

The city has specifically stated a priority (working with its own local talent). They ought to stand behind that priority (and all of their local commitments) in both word and deed. Refusing to hear presentations from the local teams, whether technically legal or not, sends the wrong signal. Give them their day in court (er, council). If it turns out the local teams aren't qualified to do the work, then by all means, choose the team that is best suited to serve the needs of Austin - cost is a factor, of course - fiscal responsibility and high value per dollar both matter. But as you and so many others have stated, if we're going to claim to be the Silicon Hills and SXSWi Headquarters, then we ought to harness that local talent to develop a best-in-class Web site to prove it.

I went through the long, arduous process of becoming a city vendor, and getting certified as a WBE/DBE. That's a small crumb of the cake. Once you are allowed to bid on a project, you've got to be able to decode the RFP. And that's assuming the City knows what it wants and needs when it drafts the RFP (or RFQ).

The Web site redesign RFP was ambiguous (unclear), poorly written, difficult to navigate, and offered frustratingly little guidance. By the way -- that's pretty much what Austinites said about the current city Web site (in a survey that the city conducted before the 2nd RFP was written).

Austin deserves much more transparency in the city's RFP and decision-making processes. Some folks joke that the city has an unspoken "If they ask, don't tell" policy (meaning, provide as little info as possible unless cornered and forced to do so). I've heard this sentiment echoed all over town.

What local business owners are saying to the City is, "Tell us what we can do to earn the city's business (aside from being certified as a vendor or WBE/MBE/DBE, because that's just the starting point). Tell us what your expectations are, and when we fail to meet those expectations, tell us what we can do better next time." In the very least, we deserve a seat at the table.

Ironically, one of the proposals in our bid (my firm partnered with FG2 and two other local companies to deliver a proposal in December), was to harness the power of social media in the new city Web site (look no further than the City of Round Rock if you want to see a successful example of that). Adding social media tools to the site would help open the lines of communication and rally the Austin community around important issues -- to give our citizens a voice and get them more involved in local government and local events. The past two days seem to have proved our point -- and FG2's capability of targeting audiences, organizing them, and rallying them around a cause that's very important to this town.

By Chris Almond

March 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this

I'm glad to see that the COA is delaying the vote on the site redesign. I commend Omar for originally surfacing this story, and for sticking with the comment thread. That this discussion is happening in the open is great. How many other COA RFP-to-contract award processes face this much netizen light of day?

Ideally, the forum for a discussion like this should be hosted by the city (irony intended). And, any online forums hosted by the city should also allow for reg'd participants to not just compose/comment, but also vote up other posts/comments too (Whitehouse.gov did this just today in their first online presidential town hall meeting - a watershed event in government 2.0).

I'm starting to enumerate functional requirements for the redesign now. Where is the RFP? Can anyone share a link to the original RFP? I can't readily find it (or much of anything) on the current COA site.

One comment mentions that the RFP did not specifically require Plone/Zope as the platform. Can anyone confirm this? If true, then where is this requirement coming from? As a tax paying Austinite though, I am very pleased that at least a Free/OSS platform strategy is in play.

I hope the current RFP (or the new one now that "the city’s new communications director and new chief information officer need more time to review options for the project") will not be limited to functional requirements that facilitate business us usual. It should also define requirements that open visibility into the business of the COA in new ways, allowing for online interaction and feedback from residents in ways that currently aren't possible today. As whitehouse.gov demonstrated today, net based social media is creating a whole new paradigm.

Heck - we are home to the most important new media/tech interactive conference in the world today (SXSWi). Wouldn't it be great if there was a panel discussion in next year's SXSWi agenda like this?... "City Government 2.0: Come to this panel to learn how the City of Austin designed and implemented their widely acclaimed interactive city government web site." ...with the panel comprised of the our Mayor, the COA CIO, and leaders of the *AUSTIN BASED* firm that led the successful and widely emulated project.

By CC

March 26, 2009 2:32 PM | Link to this

Bullpucky: FG SQUARED Uses Social Media to Shake Down the City of Austin http://budurl.com/6xee

By Steve Golab

March 26, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

Omar, I am not sure if this blog is moderated or not. I just tried to make a new post to express my viewpoint, and it doesn't seem to have been approved yet. Am I missing something?

By Steve Golab

March 26, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

Many members of our team, including me, were clearly disappointed and concerned that the COA would look outside of the local talent pool for the development of our City’s own Web site. The amount of spontaneous interest generated from the community-at-large shows that we were not alone in our viewpoint.

For decades, our City’s economic leaders have stressed “Buy Greater Austin.” Indeed, Opportunity Austin 2.0 is currently working diligently to bring more business into the MSA. FG SQUARED and other local companies, who provide global solutions for their clients, are making efforts to raise the profile of Austin as a national social media center.

In my opinion, the City contracting its Web site project outside of Austin undercuts all of these efforts. We would relish an effort on the City’s part to refine the bidding process to include Q&A reviews with all Austin firms to improve communications and to assure that bids are comparable in scope.

Steve Golab
President and CEO, FG SQUARED

By Web

March 26, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

Does Cignex charge an annual maintenance fee after the initial website launch?

By CC

March 26, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this

Austinites, you're being duped. Take a closer look at that Facebook account and see that it's creator as well as the biggest wall comment creators are ALL EMPLOYEES OF FG SQUARED. This is nothing more than FG SQUARED trying to shake down the City to pay twice the price for the same work. Look at how they're behaving, promoting themselves. It's really sad. I used to think they were cool.

By Rob Brooks

March 26, 2009 7:58 AM | Link to this

Oh and one other comment:

Actual bids should have been:

Python -- $700,000
PHP -- $900,000
Ruby -- $1.2 million
Java -- $1.8 million
.NET -- $4 million

By Rob Brooks

March 26, 2009 7:55 AM | Link to this

LOL ... I love all the Python bashing. Language bigots are so irrelevant. Put it this way. Did your little PHP/Ruby/? shop *really* want to do a website for the City of Austin at any price?? Go back to your cube ... nothing to see here.

By Jason Stoddard

March 26, 2009 3:01 AM | Link to this

I enjoyed a litany of conversations on this topic today both online and offline. There are many valid points, though I think we're missing the bigger picture. A few points:

1) How many failures until we realize that our community suffers deep fragmentation?

The Domain (Say what you will, but deliberation is the first sign of decadence and this project was poorly managed.)

LightRail. (One week prior to an estimated opening date, I am reading anecdotal tweets from Council Member Mike Martinez about his child's hopes and wishes about working as a conductor, only to read headlines the following week that the rail project is suspended, indefinitely, because of issues with the contractor/vendors. Said tweets indicated that Martinez had no foreknowledge said suspension was one-week around the proverbial bend. What does this say about communication internally at City Hall? Community communication? Due diligence of the Master bid List--RFP--bid process?)

On a macro-level, despite all good intentions, there is a severe disconnect between leaders in private industry (in all categories) and City Hall. Change in the world has been afoot for almost a decade, and very little has actually been done to bridge divides and actually create a 4th sector community model. The three traditional sectors (private enterprise, government, and for-benefit (non-profit)) are becoming antiquated silos in a mixed economy. One sector working with another, is ubiquitous and certainly we recognize each sector for what it is, respectively; but as time marches on, the harmony of all sectors, equally-yoked, working in unison is the only solution that ensures a sustainable, thriving community. This requires transparency and absolute deference to open communication. On the heels of SXSW--a showcase and celebration of our culture, our talents, our hospitality and our ambition on a global stage--we should be embarrassed that our communal communication is so poor. We should be regularly meeting and planning and setting objectives not for our own proprietary ends, but to ensure that we as a community are doing everything we can to harness and focus our collective energies. Our community is capable of being the most vibrant in the world but we must break down the sector silos and begin acting as a cohesive unit to achieving shared goals, milestones and objectives.

If we can deputize law enforcement, we can deputize innovative leadership to build any team of Austinites to solve any challenge who need no other incentive than the pride to be called to such duty in the genuine spirit of community. (Jon Lebkowsy, that one is for you.)

2) The municipal RFP process is broken, and to add insult to injury, the internal mechanisms and production channels at City Hall are deeply flawed, inefficient and not cost-effective. Certainly we could do much worse, but why not do much better?

I was the project manager on the last iteration of the City's webdev for the EGRSO site. Naturally, I learned a lot, especially after composing my own postmortem on the project. Rather than including details here, I will say that there is much that can be done to tighten turns and streamline the entire process; but municipalities are composed of individuals, and as people come and go, said municipalities do not enjoy continuity/institutional memory. Individuals come with preferences, opinions and direction of their own though they do not come with any real accountability. This invariably causes scope and project creep of epic proportions.

Bureaucracy is a dirty word for a reason. If nothing else, City Hall should form an ad hoc committee of leaders in all sectors to investigate current practices and develop more innovative process and methodology that serves the interest of the community not the individual stakeholders. Compare notes on procurement and fulfillment. There is a company up the road founded by a dude named Michael that wrote the book. Reach out, let's learn together.

We boast of our agility, but time after time we placate to broken command and control process full of false assumptions so that when we fail, it takes forever, and we only succeed in compromising just about everything.

Lastly on this point, isn't it about time we revisit the minority owned business prerequisite and reestablish a meritocracy? I realize this is not exclusively the City's protocol, but there is no longer a need for such a detrimental reliance on gender, race and/or national origin when delivering the best product or service that meets the needs of a community. The sex/gender and/or race of a business owner has never ensured project success, and it never will.

3) The CMS cited in the RFP- Zope/Plone.

Zope/Plone is an absolute nightmare. Ask anyone that uses it. It is also antiquated, clunky code. The learning curve on this platform is a "Z". That is to say, acclimating to it is inevitably flat. Though I have not confirmed, based on what I know, Zope/Plone has not experienced a code freeze in almost a decade, nor does it enjoy mindshare amongst most coders as most coders have moved on to those communities developing tighter, more robust, and essentially better open source platforms. It is painfully slow. You say Zope/Plone to any architect and you get a chuckle and a snort, after they ask you how much time and money you have. No time and no money? Oh, you must be offshoring this to Estonia or Southeast Asia. There is absolutely nothing elegant about Zope/Plone...save to say that is an old standard that will eventually go extinct... let's just hope this is after the City's next WebDev iteration.

This does not bode well for the city's internal resources, human or otherwise. In addition, this particular RFP mentions nothing about usability and scalability. Ask anyone fluent in UI/UA/UX and they will tell you that no less than 15% of any investment in a web site of this size should be earmarked for usability testing. ADA compliance is one thing, but real usability is quite another. To the point, The City of Austin and it's citizens will be left holding the bag on this one and you can bet the bottom line will far exceed the initial sticker price, especially when considering the soft costs associated with it.

Towards creative fidelity,
@JasonStoddard

By Gordon OHara

March 26, 2009 12:59 AM | Link to this

The main points here are
1.Where was the public advertising for this project?
2. The requirement for Zope is not necessary. There were other software languages that could do the job well and would interface even more effectively with the databases describted.
3. Simultaneosly the Zope requirment plus the requirment for previous exact work created a very high hurdle to entry.

The RFP does not describe why the Zope solution is so important. That's what our firm's first question would be.

By LL

March 25, 2009 11:38 PM | Link to this

Isn't it a little weird that the main rabble rouser on the Facebook group here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=63502631547 appears to be Courtney Steen?
Do you think it might be the SAME Courtney Steen that works for... oh... FG SQUARED?
http://www.fg2.com/squaredroot/tag/courtney-steen/
Thumbs down.

By jellopuddin'

March 25, 2009 11:06 PM | Link to this

Let us start the bidding all over again, I will contact a few firms in India so we have more bids to choose from. Brewster is gonna be funny tomorrow acting like he is supporting Austin business with OUR dollars, he stands a better chance at getting future mayor support by showing he is fiscally responsible and act as though he is spending his own money when making costly decisions, then the choice would be simple.

By nat

March 25, 2009 8:29 PM | Link to this

Cody if you would like to develop Python for the city of Austin for 50K a year regardless of your experience I'm sure they'd be happy to hire you.

I stand behind the fact that you could fit every Python developer in Austin in a Wendy's.

By Don Rovella

March 25, 2009 7:42 PM | Link to this

FG SQUARED was the only company of the two Austin companies mentioned that complied with the city's requirements. They are certainly qualified to handle this job. In fact, they are the title sponsors of the Interactive Austin 2009 conference that will be held in April. www.interactiveaustin2009.com

By Kukulkan

March 25, 2009 7:35 PM | Link to this

Omar,

Enjoy your blog but I'm afraid you're on the wrong side in this one. This sounds to me like the city dragged their feet for a couple of years and then jumped at the cheapest bidder without even giving the locals a chance to match. That's just bad business and bad politics.

By JustTheFacts

March 25, 2009 7:12 PM | Link to this

I'm all for local Austin business, but the facts are that very few companies bid. We've seen a lot of information in the comments here already, so let me add...

#1
----------
I see the "gee, my company would have bid on the redesign if I'd known..." postings.

I have worked in the public sector and it is quite a different beast from private.

With the public sector, you have your own unique introduction: it's like a big game of "Go Fish" where you are asking public sector employees if they have your matching pair card, when you don't even know if they are holding a card or are in the game. Slowly, you figure out the method to the madness; however, it is a very different cultural experience from private sector.

That being said, like in any industry, the early bird (and maybe networked bird) gets the worm.

FACT:
The FACT is the bids are posted on a public site off CoA's website. You can even get automatic notifications by signing up. I will let the go-getters verify this fact. I'm not going to do a step-by-step on how to do business with CoA here.

Further, CoA's website kept updates of this project all along, even since its inception in 2007. In fact, they solicited public input way back when on the redesign: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/austingo/news_survey.htm (OK, I'll give you one URL for the fact)

Back to what Omar said, if you didn't participate in the public input, monitoring or bidding on the RFP, you don't have room to complain. Take it as a lesson to be wiser for the next go round.

#2
----------
I see:
"95% of their employees reside in Ahmed-abad India"

Can someone show me where this is the case? Where are the facts to support this?

Is this simply a jump to conclusions based on last names of execs?? I want it proven, 1 way or another.

I will say that I am aware of at least 1 other US project with this company that used its US-based development team. I don't know how to get that proof to show, though, so research for yourself - please list any verifiable docs either way.

#3
---------
CoA wanted a vendor with past successful implementations of Zope/Plone CMS.

FACT:
Looking at Cignex's website, they have extensive CMS implementation experience, case studies, and testimonials. Check the Cignex website, or contact their customers.

Further, they have authored various CMS books, including a 400+ page Plone book. How hard is it to look on Amazon or on the company website to verify this?

In an election year with a crummy economy and high loss of jobs, people have a lot to be concerned and frustrated over. Is this project really a valid target?

Just the facts, please. Just the facts.

By Miguel

March 25, 2009 7:11 PM | Link to this

It is ridiculous move on the City's part! I was the Public Info Manager at another city in Texas and implemented this very thing. We have the people here that can do just as good a job or better, and probably at a lower cost. It's yet another example of the shoddy leadership at Austin City Hall...

By Cody Stoltman

March 25, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this

Nat,

I'm not sure where you get your information, but Plone is a very capable framework and a breeze to work with.

You said, "Python never has been and never will be very widespread and as a result finding qualified developers is VERY difficult."

That quote is not only ignorant, but completely untrue. Python, and in turn the Django framework, have a huge following and finding developers is quite easy. There are plenty of good Python developers in Austin and by making that statement you are misrepresenting the abilities of Austin developers. It's insulting.

Next time, speak only for yourself.

By Will

March 25, 2009 5:00 PM | Link to this

Without re-hashing all the above points, suffice it to say that it is outrageous that the majority of the local tech and design community is only hearing about this project a day before it goes to vote. The major offense is that the city didn't adequately advertise this project. My firm would jump at an opportunity like this.

By observer

March 25, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this

If you actually look at the response to the bid, the $708000 is actually using Tx subcontractors
$111,530 is to Austin Firm Jigsaw Solutions Inc., $130,736 to a Houston Firm Advarion, Inc., and the balance $461,821 to Cignex Technologies. So both the local economy and Texas are getting at least 35% of the contract.

By nat

March 25, 2009 4:24 PM | Link to this

I used to work with many of the people on the "inside" of this project at CTM. A content management system called "Plone" was chose mainly because it was free and met many of the "requirements" that municipal site have however Plone is written in a comparatively obscure language (Python). Had they chosen a solution written in PHP, Ruby, .NET, or Java I think the number of bids would have been much higher. Python never has been and never will be very widespread and as a result finding qualified developers is VERY difficult especially for what the city can pay. This project is hamstrung by it's decision to pick a technology on the front end. Bad idea, bad decision.

By Jeff Culbertson

March 25, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this

From the Facebook group: "The company recommended by the City of Austin is Californian in name only -- in reality their Santa Clara office is really just a sales office, while 95% of their employees reside in Ahmed-abad India. But the California address allows municipalities to avoid the embarrassment of saying "hey, our idea of a stimulus package is to send nearly seven figures overseas in the midst of this economy"

By Tom

March 25, 2009 3:44 PM | Link to this

My company was on the list that should have been notified of this RFP and wasn't. It makes me wonder how many other Austin companies were not notified. Given the fact that they only received 3 proposals leads me to believe the RFP was not advertised as it should have been.

I am not exactly sure why the RFP would require only 1 type content management system. Who was the analyst that said that one specified in the RFP was optimal and cost effective?

I also found it troubling that the RFP describes a web setup that is not optimal. You don't want to have multiple services running off your web-server environment.

By Bill Leake

March 25, 2009 3:44 PM | Link to this

As the President of the Austin Interactive Marketing Association, with several hundred members (comprising agencies, web development firms, internet marketing outfits, and others), I can tell you that many are highly concerned by what we're seeing on this bid process.

For my part, I think the bigger issue hinges around some points that Omar raised. Omar asked

1. Did Austin not query the right companies

I would argue that they didn't. FG2 and EOP Media (the two central-texas based "losers") perhaps weren't the right companies either. And if only 3 responses occur out of 228 solicited, that should set off an alarm bell. This is a failing of the city staff. Therefore, they should try again.

2. or streamline the request enough to make it a realistic project?

From folks I know who watched the city RFP, it was particularly horrendous. In a nutshell, the city folks

- put together an unrealistic RFP
- query a large list (228) but probably not the RIGHT list, and
- and only get 3 responses, only 2 of which really passed muster.

Well, that to me doesn't suggest recommending going with the CA/Indian outfit. It suggests going back to the drawing board and getting it right. Now is not the time to be sending Austin's money overseas. And let's be real, folks, and stop calling it a California company. The CA office is for sales purposes only. 95% of the employees live in Ahmed-abad India.

By SamIam

March 25, 2009 3:43 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know who I call to fill in a pothole in South Austin? I can't find it on the City of Austin website. Before they fill it though, I want to put my frozen dead cat in tha' hole, so that ever time I pass over it I can think of ol' Sylvester. What time does Gunsmoke start?

By Michelle Greer

March 25, 2009 3:43 PM | Link to this

First of all, I heard they needed to use Plone, and while I've heard good things about it, it is really obscure and there is zero Plone community here. Drupal would have met the requirements surely and it is not hard to find decent Drupal shops here.

Secondly, I've heard that this California company sources out to India. Yes, we want to generate jobs in Austin, but by sourcing out, it becomes much harder to hold a company accountable to what they say. Word spreads fast in Austin, and if you are a local company that screws up the City of Austin website, you probably won't get another big gig anytime soon.

I just think this decision was made by people who really don't know better. Sorry.

By Ed

March 25, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this

the "global economy" is the problem, idiot. The way this works is: Send the jobs, and the money, to California and let the Californians come here and either destroy local Austin homes and businesses to buy condos or raise the cost-of-living so much that locals cannot afford to live in Austin. Instead of the "trickle down" theory promoted by Omar (sending money away and then letting people spend it later here in buying condos or attending a festival) we should just support our local people and businesses DIRECTLY.

By Who Dat?

March 25, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this

This isn't nearly as stupid as that ridiculous solar farm in East Austin.

By keith

March 25, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this

The Austin city website is in DIRE need of a re-birth. When most websites for city departments have a 1995 copyright, I think it's about time that the city needs to redesign it. That design might have worked 14 yrs ago, but we're supposed to be a technology city yet our website says otherwise. I'm sure most small towns have better websites that what the COA currently has - Marc Off, get your act together and actually let the city redesign and update the website

By Judy

March 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

Omar -- I was being facetious about the 8 year olds.

My point is that here in Austin there are plenty of talented people that can redesign a website and in this day and age of looking for efficient ways to conduct business I find it rather frivolous for the City to outsource this project.

There is no reason why the City could not have hired an Austin-based team of temporary contractors to work this project. If there is a reason, do tell.

By LearnToProgram

March 25, 2009 3:11 PM | Link to this

Lisa- That's one of the more ignorant comments that I have heard. That's like saying because you own a Sony Camcorder you can create a blockbuster movie. This is a an appropriate project to contract out-- and a vital one for our city and economy. Not sure why you think web design and development is so inconsequential and easy when quite a few of us in Austin spent a great deal of time learning the skills and knowledge to do it well.

By Suzie

March 25, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this

California? I'd rather outsource it to India! They could probably do it for around 5 grand.

By Judy

March 25, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this

In this day and age, ANYONE between the age of 8 and 80 who can type and upload graphics can go to Go Daddy or similar and start up a website for only a few hundred dollars plus the monthly fee.

Furthermore, you mean to tell us that the City of Austin doesn�t have tech-savvy people already on the payroll that can overhaul the website?? It is unacceptable that the City is sending this project out of state.

By Tom C

March 25, 2009 2:56 PM | Link to this

I found out about this contract being awarded today while driving my car into work (downtown Austin). When I first heard the amount of money that would be spent I was like "You have got to be kidding". That is a crazy amount of money for a website. I then viewed the Austin website and it is composed of about 43 mini websites from what I could see. Even with that though $700,000 seems steep. My estimate at $10,000 per mini website comes to $430,000 to do the job. Add to that meetings and graphic design and your up to maybe another $150,000. So I am quite certain there is a company in Austin that could do it for $600,000.

The fact that the City only received 3 proposals is a major problem. How were companies notified that the city wanted to redesign there website? What was in the RFP that made so many companies not want to respond? Why were the two Austin based companies proposals so much higher than the Californian one.

If you go to the cities website you would have an extremely hard time finding out that they wanted to redesign there website in the first place.

My company was never notified about the city wanting to redesign their site. We never received a RFP. If we had we would have certainly at least sent a proposal.

Also why limit yourself to only one content management system for the website (Zope/Plone CMS ). Who decided that the Zope/Plone CMS was actually better than others?

By bikersmom

March 25, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this

I'm with Nate on this one. If the city is willing to spend way too much for a re-design, spend it in Austin. Hello.

By Say What?

March 25, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this

With all the local talent we have in this city I don't understand why employers constantly go outside Austin to hire.

And that goes for hiring the City Manager!!

Sounds like the fix was already in, that's why the local company was never even allowed to make a presentation to the city.

Just more phony baloney from your local phony baloney government.

By Julie Gomoll

March 25, 2009 2:45 PM | Link to this

Thanks for getting more info on this, Omar.

My thoughts (admittedly easy in hindsight):

* The scope of this project is pretty broad, making the pool of adequately staffed & experienced firms small.
* The city would be better served getting a bid for the analysis and needs assessment first. Part of that bid would include putting an RFP together for the actual redesign.
* The $700K actually seems like a pretty low bid given the scope. Is there a person or a team making sure this is a realistic proposal?
* In-person presentations of the proposals are a must - no question.

By Michelle

March 25, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

Great food for thought, Omar.

Problem with people just catching wind of a story like this "outsourcing" is they don't always research the facts - and they are out there - the RFP, the history of this bid, the award amounts being considered. People react based on passion, not data. People should get facts together first, and then decide if there's really an issue here. (Thanks, Kyla, for the historical lesson on the comments above.)

More facts:
And of the award money for this contract, 15.84% is going to a LOCAL AUSTIN minority-owned woman business. 18.57% is going to a HOUSTON minority-owned business.

As to "how come there were not more bidders?" who knows. Government contracts are very bureaucratic, but the information for an RFP, at least for this CoA one, was OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FROM THE DAY OF POSTING the RFP. During the RFP process there is an open Q and A period for potential vendors to clarify the RFP wording. And, what's great (and not so great) in the public sector (at least here) is that all questions and the answers during this Q&A are posted for all.

I'm speaking as a small business owner: it's not always easy, but you have to stay on top of information. I have to pound the pavement to get awards, so maybe some local companies, esp. if they work primarily in the private sector, didn't know what pavement to pound.

Good side of this story is that it should make those companies interested in learning more, take this avenue to find out. Next time (and there is at least 1 other opportunity that I've seen with similar requirements as this CoA RFP recently), the excuse of not applying, not knowing, not being fair, etc., well - it just won't fly.

By Texas Two-Stepper

March 25, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

Since nobody ever sticks to a signed contract in Austin city business, the bids quoted are relatively meaningless. As with everything else, the job will bet that the CA firm came in low, then they'll come begging for more...as everyone who bids on a COA contract job seems to do.

By Brian

March 25, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this

This is the first time I've heard of this project... and in an era of budget cuts and decreased revenue I'm not sure it's a project that should be undertaken right now... and a few things stand out.

The RFP seems to severely restrict which companies can compete for the bid... basically saying that in order to be considered you have to have have completed a web design project of comparable size using Zope/Plone as the CMS in the past three years and have experience working with other government agencies.

Maybe I've got more faith in the skills of the educated people of Austin who are eager to work for a decent living wage... cause I think for $700,000 I could put together a team of folks to pull this off, if only the qualifications didn't prevent me from doing so.

By Sam Eder

March 25, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

Omar, as the creator of the "vague" petition I am a little puzzled by why you choose to trivialize the perspective of those of use who oppose this as "Web hysteria and Twitter mobs". We who are outraged have good reason to: A poorly conceived and publicized RFP has resulted in playing ground slanted against local firms. Those of us in the interactive community believe it would be unthinkable to outsource the band or director the City would choose to represent Austin- and interactive development and design are just as important to our local economy and reputation as those two "sexier" industries.

Secondly, I'm taken aback by the disservice you do to the twitter community at large by underestimating the research and level understanding that the average person. You certainly do not retweet blindly, why do you assume that the rest of us don't do our due diligence before we pass along tweets? I humbly invite you off your high horse- remember that the crowd is just as capable of dispassionate research as almighty journalists.

By nate

March 25, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this

let's face it. It is a waste of money either way. Might as well let Austinites get the moola!

By Buddy

March 25, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

Omar, your comedy needs work, but that's another topic. I see Kyla Kanz posted here - people should take heed to what she says instead of Omar, as she is highly regarded in the interactive community.

Your distaste for "blind boosterism" stems from your assumption that it is indeed blind. I assure you it is not. If you have a problem with a person's right to lobby and question their city government's decisions, then you are against public referendum and freedom of speech.

You can't be against that, can you?

I'll leave you alone now. :)

By J.P.

March 25, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this

Omar –

Thanks for writing about this. No matter your intentions, most people wouldn’t know about this otherwise. I did have a few questions I hope you can answer.
1) What’s the process for issuing the RFP -- Who is it disseminated to and how?
2) What is behind the scores? In other words, are those scores based on average scores awarded by members of proposal evaluation team? Is there more information here that is public record?
3)
And finally, am I the only one that finds it odd that 30% of the evaluation score is based on “Experience”? This rewards those who are already tied into the system and may discourage “newcomers” from submitting bids. If you don’t have lots of experience, why bother submitting? No wonder there were so few proposals.

This sounds like a severely flawed process. To the City of Austin ..Fix it!

By Jeff Culbertson

March 25, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

@Matt: The tricky thing is, with the city's RFP, the questions aren't "What's the most cost-effective solution?" The questions are "What would it cost to do it like this?" I can tell you with absolute certainty that what is being bid on by all three companies is NOT the most cost-effective solution.

By Ryan Joy

March 25, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this

Omar, I tend to agree with you. I think there are a number of issues here, none of which am I qualified to criticize, but which I will comment on anyway.

My immediate reaction was that COA only got 3 bids back (2 viable) and went with the lower cost. This is what I expect our government to do. There would've been outrage and questions of impropriety if it were two Austin firms that submitted the disparate amounts and COA went with the larger.

I think that the bidding process was mishandled by COA though. I don't know if the RFP was detailed enough or explicit enough about stating possible overages or whatever.

I do agree with Steve Golab that FG Squared should have had a presentation opportunity. Projects of this scale work like that. The viable bids should have been taken to the next stage to win the contract, not awarded solely on their initial proposal.

More firms should have probably bid, but they didn't. I don't know where the blame falls for that one. I know from a close friend working to overhaul San Diego's IT and web systems that working for bureaucratic committees is BRUTAL. So, maybe they passed.

By 360reader

March 25, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this

Anybody else wish the Austin360 website supported RSS feeds on the comments? RFP.. anyone @ FG/EOP ?

By keith

March 25, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this

The Austin city website is in DIRE need of a redesign. It is not uncommon to goto a website for a city department and see that it still has an update 'date' of 1995....heck AFD and APD's website has quite a number of weblinks that have not been updated in years....how can we call ourselves 'Silicon Hills' and say we are technologically upfront, yet our city website is still in the early days of the internet.....shame

By John

March 25, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

Are we in budget crunch? What positive things can this do for our City?

By Richard Scheffrin

March 25, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

You always get what you pay for in this world, especially in web design. I'm not convinced that the website that will come from this project will be anything that Austin will be proud of. I have no facts to draw upon besides the "outsourcing" comment listed above. If the bids were that different, it's obvious to me that the communication between Austin and the bidders was not complete enough to elicit a valid bid. As these things often go, there is probably a connection between Cignex and an Austin official. I guess this means I agree that the fervor is warranted.

By Jennifer L. Wojcik

March 25, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this

Omar,

While I certainly understand and appreciate your perspective, please consider mine for a moment.

Outsourcing large projects such as this one translates directly into job creation.

For myself and others like me who depend on job creation for our livelihoods, this goes deeper than just righteous indignation. This hits our pocketbooks directly. Not to mention the impact on the local economy through direct job creation.

It is my position that the City should do whatever possible to engage local companies first on a project of this scale.

Furthermore, as a small business owner, I pay a good deal more in tax dollars than your average citizen. This is also a direct impact to myself and many like me who would rather see local benefit from those dollars spent, rather than see them shipped to California.

Mind you...I have nothing against participation in the global economy. I participate in it myself. But in this instance, I feel that the entire process was handled badly on many fronts and that steps need to be taken to course-correct.

Thanks again for your perspective.

Jen

By Matt

March 25, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this

I'm not surprised these guys were ruled out when the founder is making statements like this..

"If FG Squared was selected, one of the first things we would do is say, ‘let’s take a look at the request for proposal and let’s validate that it’s actually the most cost-effective solution"

What the hell went on during the 2 week RFP process?

By Kyla Kanz

March 25, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

First, this RFP for the City of Austin Website has been issued 3 separate times over the last two years, and has been written differently each time.

The 2nd time it was issued, many qualified and highly interested Austin companies participated and put in extreme amounts of time and proprietary material to be part of the bid. Tons of work, tons of time, only to hear the COA was then taking the project "in-house."

Then many months later we see a new RFP reissued, with the major criteria hinged around a technology that no one in Austin specializes in.

First problem, the COA committed early on to a technology that not many development companies specialize in, 2nd problem, the COA tied all very different creative and management aspects of this large project (design, branding, Project Management, IA, etc.) to this one technology.

All or nothing. They pretty much shut the door on most Austin companies even being able to participate. I do not think there was bloated overpricing for a project of this scope. As far as other Austin companies not participating, It was not for a lack of desire, ability or effort, I assure you.

By maczter

March 25, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

Now that there is actually wide-spread awareness that the city is seeking to have this work done, I would just like to see perhaps another 90 days added for local companies who were not formally aware of the RFP to have a chance to bid on the job. Yesterday was the first time most had heard of this RFP, including many who may be interested in bidding.

If, after 90 days, the California company still has the best bid, then so be it, but I believe there were qualified local firms who were not aware of the RFP until this week and I'd like to see them get a fair shake at it.

And, before you ask, I'm not interested in bidding on it. I'm just interested in seeing local talent not previously aware of the RFP, for whatever reason, have a chance to bid on it now that news of the RFP is out and people are actually aware of it.

@maczter

By Buddy

March 25, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this

So Omar a comment like this doesn't show your complete lack of understanding and disdain for Austin interactive companies?

"What�s being lost, I think, in the whole �Let�s keep business in Austin!� response is that very few companies would have the capabilities to take on such a large government project. This isn�t a matter of getting a few Web designers together and knocking it out over a weekend of Shiner Bocks and BarCamping."

How can you responsibly support that statement?

I think Jeff makes a good point by saying that it may have been a breakdown in the communication to Austin's multitude of design companies that could have bid on this.

Omar, you really need to re-read your own words to see how Anti-Austin you are sounding here.

By Caroling Lee

March 25, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this

Thanks for writing an article that asks some very good questions about why the City of Austin would go outside of Austin to redevelop/redesign their website. I know there's going to be a lot of great debate about this, some that I agree with and some that I don't....

One thing I think that's important to this discussion is the RFP process overall. In our experience (I'm a producer for a local interactive agency, TradeMark Media), these organizations gather a short list of who they offer the RFP to and THEN evaluate the bids they receive.

My question is - does anyone know how this process works with the City of Austin and is there any information on whether they did a thorough search of local agencies and consultancies? Also - the value of the bid they receive is often based on the quality of the RFP. Did the City of Austin do their due diligence to figure what to ask for in their RFP? Were they clear about it? Was it realistic?

Maybe the Austin tech community would be less upset if they had been asked to participate in this process...

Just my two cents.

By EOP

March 25, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this

CA FTW!

By wcardinal

March 25, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this

CIGNEX outsources a majority of their work to India. That should be unpleasant enough. That seems to be conveniently left out of most reports.

By Jeff Culbertson

March 25, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this

I work at FG2, so I realize I stand at a disadvantage regarding whether I'm biased or not. However, I'm also an Austinite. The budget involved with this project is going to create (or at the least retain) jobs in what's clearly a deteriorating economy. Those should be Austin jobs. I KNOW there are more than two companies in central Texas capable of pulling this project off successfully. I think it's a fair question to ask why they aren't submitting proposals. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't much awareness. FG SQUARED was not aware of it until very late in the submission process. Austin is filled with talent, doesn't it seem ... strange that (practically) nobody appears qualified to do this?

By Buddy

March 25, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Wow, looks like Omar is doing damage control for the Cignex Corporation and the City. Omar, so are you even curious as to why a California company bid so much lower? Could it be a bait and switch? We've seen this before: City bites on an upfront low ball bid and then next thing we know, the project has overrun its budget to the tune of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Maybe the two Austin companies offered a more conservative picture of what the costs would be. You should be ashamed of your biased reporting here.

By Chris Bailey

March 25, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

Omar, you put your neck on the chopping block and I applaud you for it. I've been a bit mystified by all the backlash, though guess I shouldn't be surprised. At first, I was perplexed that the CoA would choose a firm outside of Austin. But then I saw that only two Austin firms stepped up to the plate.

As a business anthropologist, my question is more geared toward probing what happened here. Is there a process flaw in how the city gathers RFPs? Is there - as you mentioned - a lack of coordination among interactive firms in Austin? Or is there something else at play here?

Unlike those who are angry with the city, I believe this is a shared failure and one that our government and agencies here should learn from.

By omglawdork

March 25, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this

I couldn't agree more, Omar. While it is important and admirable for the city of Austin to utilize as many local businesses as they can, the city has to deal with both procurement requirements imposed by state law on cities, as well as the pressure to spend city tax revenue as responsibly as possible, in addition to the issues you mention. Having lived in Austin for a while now, I'm pretty confident that the city picking a local bidder that was significantly more expensive would have caused an equal uproar about wasting taxpayer money.