Talk:Call for bids/Archives/2011

EU

Referring to the EU as if it is the only region or body involved in tenders, is misleading. Is there anything we can do to get this tidied up so that it reads in a more generic way. Separate sections outlining different conventions from one region to another are fine but specific references within the basic definition are unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bj05hua (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have cleaned up the page. If information specific to one country or region is to be included in the article, then information about many countries/regions should be included to balance it. There are many links at the bottom of the page to look through to find the information. OzLawyer 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo, If you want to add links to Ontario practice, add a link in the external links section to a page that explains the process. Links to individual tenders don't fit. OzLawyer 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the links here is that they are specific to a single region that I assume WikiWoo (judging from his edit history) has got some problems with. The simple fact is that prequalified tenders are being used almost everywhere right now, because in some areas, there are specific requirements for bidders to meet for those contracts and having an open bid is an invitation to trouble when some of the bids are rejected afterwards. I suggest, Wikiwoo, that if you want to find some examples that aren't from Ontario specifically, that they might be worthwhile for inclusion. But, the formatting you're directly pasting every time you revert repeats information better laid out earlier in the article. Thus, I am going to do a bit of editing myself, and go from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeat edits. I forget about preview sometimes. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I happen to be from Ontario and in Ontario the Regions are spending many Billions of dollars on public tenders each year inviting only a few friends and keeping all others from getting their work or making money from their work if they get one. The few invited friends are mostly companies who could not compete in open tender and can only get the work from taking non-elected public officials golfing and god knows what else. All that is evident is that public works cost up to 100% or more than it should and they are not subject to Auditor General control. The public money is mostly wasted this way forcing our taxes here to keep escalating out of control. I don't know about other parts of the world, but most honest democratic countries have checks and balances in place. Not in the Regions of Ontario which is basically one big networked secret organization where they are pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars by things like not conducting completive (and no tender at all sometimes) so they can help their friends get high prices for their public works contracts. I picked Peel as examples out because they are the biggest and wasting the most money each year. They have their tender material published on-line and they are quite blatant about what they do, because the elected Regional Council members are almost all totally corrupt beyond redemption.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm from BC and have witnessed many times where contractors were prequalified for various tenders because they had specific knowledge or skills that were required for that particular field of work, with no intention of helping out their friends, et al. You apparently have an axe you want to grind, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. I suggest letters to the editors of your various local newspapers as an alternative. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In Ontario ALL public tenders are prequalified. It's got nothing to do with special knowledge. It's special relationships that count. I have no axe to grind. It's the law that says that Favoratism and Incumbancy is OK in public spending, as long as it's not the elected doing it. The non-elected are free to do as they please and give public works to their friends and relatives. It's not illegal like in the more open and honest countries.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not think it has to do with specific knowledge, WikiWoo, but then you have nothing to do with the decisions or the decision-makers in this process, now do you? I hate to say this, because someone might take it the wrong way, but your opinion doesn't mean anything here. We're about verifiable facts. OzLawyer 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sory to dissagree with you again. This is a talk page and my opinion is as important as your opinion. Since you are but a student, you might consider bending to the experience of your elders who have dealt with these types of things for longer that you have been alive. #0 years ago IT WAS AGAINT THE LAW to ward public tenders without an open public tender where anyone with the ability to guarantee performance was able to tender. Since then lawyers and others have perverted the system into letting public business officials manage public money as it it was their own. Have you followed ADSCAM? Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that your opinion was useless to the article. As for "listening to my elders", please, don't make me laugh. You listen to people who know things. Sometimes they're "elders", sometimes not. OzLawyer 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing and expanding the different articles to avoid censorship

I have done some work to distinguish the different articles related to Tenders and Public Tendering. Way too much confusion is being pushed here trying to keep people ignorant on what these different things mean. Expanding and adding articles is a process of building a better encyclopedia. Kindly refrain from censoring information and creating confusion in public information that should be simple and easy to follow.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No censoring is going on. You are trying to make some kind of non-existent distinction between public and private tenders other than the fact that one is public and one is private, and you're trying to claim that the difference is so large that Public Tendering needs its own article separate from Tenders, which is certainly not the case. In addition, hearing your argument that this page should exist solely to describe the "trivia" about the origin of the word is, well, ludicrous. If you want to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the tendering process, you should take any verifiable and useful information from your recently created Public Tendering article and put it in Tenders. OzLawyer 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of building and expandinig the encyclopedia, why don't you do that instead of deleting material. You consider it "verifiable and useful information" and as an editor can move it there like anyone acting in good faith to expand Wiki. This is a perfect example of what troubles me with the maner you apply to address my contributions and I find uncivil. If you agree that the material is useful and verifiable, why do you continue to delete it? If you had moved it to another article and say you think it looks better over there, you would not then offend me or my great effort to do good work.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what in your work is useful or verifiable. I simply stated that you should move that which is useful and verifiable over to Tenders. As for doing it myself, someone has already attempted to redirect, but you reverted that, so I put the article up for deletion so that if it was deleted you would be forced to try to actually incorporate what was useful into this article instead of creating needless forks. OzLawyer 13:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples

WikiWoo, plenty of articles are written without outside examples at all. It's more important to explain the difference than to show examples. This is what should be done. OzLawyer 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are differences between "public tenders" and any other kind, it certainly isn't in the distinction beween invited/closed and open, which would apply to any kind of tender. I would think the biggest difference is that one is often regulated and the other typically isn't. --Gary Will 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The article Tendering seems to cover the same territory as this article, possibly with some text that belongs in Government procurement. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree about trying to get rid of the separate article tendering. And while we're at it, let's try to incorporate the information in government procurement aka "public tendering" (see above) as well. Or do you think that may be too drastic? --here@llyis@dj (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought that far, but I see your point. All three are pretty much the same thing. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are others too that should be incorporated: request for tender, request for proposal, request for quotation, and others, including probably procurement. --Espoo (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Invitation For Bid - Derek (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say, that government procurement has many specifics, so it should have a separate article. --Rudoleska (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Proposals (RFPs) should be articled under it's own weight. Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.163.36 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. An RFP is a much more formal process than a call for bids. Apteva (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a merger is in order for all the named articles, with the exception of procurement, which in my view is more general than what we're talking about here. Now who is going to do it? :) Debate 木 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As stated above: "An RFP is a much more formal process than a call for bids." RFP should stand aside under its own weight and procurement, as well. Procurement might include such functional topics as pricing, materials management, or indirect management, but should not be under the umbrella of public tendering, nor should RFPs.--Cargilcm (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There should be cross links to the other Articles, but RFP is different from a `Call for Bid`

RFQ and "call for bid" could be seen as same terms. However, RFP is not similar to "call for bid" because you can ask for much more than just the bids. It is important to notice that RFP/RFQ/RFI are common used Business Terms, specifically defined to indicate towards the suppliers what your intentions for contacting them are. Terms like these are daily used by procurment departments, hence it is important that newly identyfeid suppliers can locate these terms and their difinition on Wikipedia. Don't merge, link instead. //Niklas

Since we don't seem to have consensus for a merger, I'm removing the tags. I agree that RfP, call for bids, etc. are topics that can be usefully discussed outside of their specific application in government procurement.  Sandstein  09:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree that 'tendering' and 'call for bids' are widely used in the private sector too, not only in government procurement.

But the proposed-merge tags are still in the articles. Any reason for that? Alinor (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup and new sections

I have made some clean ups by removing the region specific examples as well as the grammar. For the issues of the restricted tenders, I have tried to clarify the basis of restricted tenders based on my own personal experience in the subject have organized a few tenders.

I have also added additional sections on the double envelope system and the tender box.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)