I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but the United States strongly rejects, on a cultural level, the notion of a professional class of government employees.
This is an excellent point. When the US Federal or a state government agency decides they need to link point A and point B with a transportation project, the agency typically only provides a basic outline of project requirements. Outside contractors are used to develop the more detailed requirements, and even the RFP for design and construction.
This creates a situation where big engineering firms try very hard (and often succeed) in creating RFPs that only they are qualified for. Yes, this really happens. In fact, whenever I read an RFP the number one question on my mind is "is this written so that only XXX firm can win it?" The answer tends to be "yes" in many cases and we don't bother bidding on it.
The obvious solution would be to prevent companies that write RFPs from bidding on the project. The problem is that no one (or at least no one good) would want to bid on the RFP prep work! If given the chance to win a $250,000 RFP preparation project, or a $500 million general engineering contract/$10 billion construction contract, the highly qualified firms will wait to take a shot at the larger work.
This creates a situation where big engineering firms try very hard (and often succeed) in creating RFPs that only they are qualified for. Yes, this really happens.
I want to second this so it doesn't sound like conspiracy theory or sour grapes. Speaking from the perspective of somebody who worked for the state, and went through the process of putting out RFPs and final selection, at least half of RFPs are put out as a technicality after the deal has already been made informally with somebody's quid-pro-quo-friend/drinking buddy/nephew. It's the art of adding bizarre requirements to straightforward jobs, until you find a set that only one known vendor could satisfy - and using those to eliminate all of the other proposals before they ever get to the selection.
In all honesty, that's not just a government thing or just a US thing. It just seems to be the nature of RFPs everywhere. The bit I found hilarious in the GP message was not the idea of tailoring RFPs to a single company, but that this company would also get paid for the RFP writing stage. In the private sector it seems to be expected that the vendor has the decency to do at least that part for free :-)
(The first time I was involved in writing an RFP for our own product, we kept on cringing as we piled more and more obscure features of the system into it. Anything that had any practical use at all was fair game. And in the end we were congratulated by the customer for how neutral and fair we'd made the RFP look like. I still boggle at the thought of what the unfairly restricted version would have looked like.)
Nothings free. I think if the RFP writing is free - the project is likely common enough that other projects serve as a template for the bid. If the project requires unique design & analysis to bid correctly, then the cost has to be built into the overall operating cost of the company - either by charging for the RFP work, or folding into the project execution profits or at risk as a future template for other bids.
The worst case is if the project is truly one-of-a-kind not-repeatable not-transferrable. That's why the US gov't pays qualified defense contractors for some projects at the rfp stage. e.g. the last fighter contract paid for full flying prototypes from two final competitors.
at least half of RFPs are put out as a technicality after the deal has already been made informally with somebody's quid-pro-quo-friend/drinking buddy/nephew. It's the art of adding bizarre requirements to straightforward jobs
--Interesting data point, just order of magnitude.
The solution would be to have an internal technical agency that is able to write the RFP. Especially one where the incentives (bonuses etc) are tied to the long term success of projects.
In addition to adestefan's point, think about the qualifications the "technical agency" would need to have, and now you have another large government bureaucracy which isn't so popular these days.
For a transit project, this technical agency would need expertise in the following areas (at a minimum):
- vehicle procurement
- infrastructure procurement
- construction management
- geology and geotechnical engineering
- noise & vibration
- pest control
- air quality
- fire safety
- dust control
- archeology
- animal migration
- water quality & watershed
And you would need enough staff in those areas to handle the workload. I would support such an agency, but many folks would not.
"and now you have another large government bureaucracy which isn't so popular these days": That is exactly my point. Of course, if being a civil servant not only pays less (as adestefan says), but it also brings the stigma of being "just a bureaucrat", you're not going to have very good people there.
But things don't have necessarily to be so: Serving the common good is a very motivating goal for many people; not everybody just goes after the biggest paycheck. At least where money isn't the only measure for everything.
The problem is that the internal technical agency needs to avoid regulatory capture and stay competent while never actually doing the work themselves. None of the current solutions of regulator vs. private enterprise setups work great right now.
Personally, I wonder if the best way to keep the system at a higher efficiency would be to have a public works departement which is allowed into bidding alongside private companies. The public works department would intentionally be kept too small to handle all the work needed, but would serve as a similar competitive check as a regulatory agency. Because it's in competition with private bidders, regulatory capture is more difficult, and technical competency is maintained because they're actually executing projects.
I would really love to see a setup like this for mobile broadband too.
Personally, I wonder if the best way to keep the system at a higher efficiency would be to have a public works departement which is allowed into bidding alongside private companies.
That's kinda what happens with commuter rail in the US. Many commuter rail systems might be owned by the transit agency but the agency subcontracts the operations to firms like Keolis. One of the common applicants for these operations bids is Amtrak, which is about as close to a "public option" as we can reasonable get.
Why would I work for that agency when the contractor will hire me for 3x the salary + a large bonus to figure out how to get around anything that agency puts out?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that outside contractors are writing those RFP's, and turning around and winning them, that would lead to allll sorts of legal trouble for all parties involved, a risk no large contracting company would be willing to take. I will say however, that often times, the particular govt office/personal have a working relationship with a contractor, or have done business with them in the past, and will tailor an RFP so that only the company they want to work with will win it. Sometimes this is bad, but sometimes if there is already an established relationship, and a good management structure in place between the two parties, it may be the most effective way to accomplish a task.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that outside contractors are writing those RFP's, and turning around and winning them,
It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens a lot.
often times, the particular govt office/personal have a working relationship with a contractor, or have done business with them in the past [..] it may be the most effective way to accomplish a task
I've been on both sides of this issue and it's difficult to navigate, like you imply. Do you pick the low-bid firm who is likely to screw up the project, resulting in increased costs down the line? Or do you pick the more expensive firm who will do the job right the first time, but may subject you to "fraud, waste and abuse" criticisms?
This is an excellent point. When the US Federal or a state government agency decides they need to link point A and point B with a transportation project, the agency typically only provides a basic outline of project requirements. Outside contractors are used to develop the more detailed requirements, and even the RFP for design and construction.
This creates a situation where big engineering firms try very hard (and often succeed) in creating RFPs that only they are qualified for. Yes, this really happens. In fact, whenever I read an RFP the number one question on my mind is "is this written so that only XXX firm can win it?" The answer tends to be "yes" in many cases and we don't bother bidding on it.
The obvious solution would be to prevent companies that write RFPs from bidding on the project. The problem is that no one (or at least no one good) would want to bid on the RFP prep work! If given the chance to win a $250,000 RFP preparation project, or a $500 million general engineering contract/$10 billion construction contract, the highly qualified firms will wait to take a shot at the larger work.