Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.
|
Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.
Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.
|
Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.
The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.