Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase" 422
elBart0 writes "Diebold has decided to sue the commonwealth of Massachusetts for choosing a competitor to provide voting machines for the disabled. Diebold wants to force the state to stop using the machines immediately, despite the upcoming municipal elections in many towns. The commonwealth chose the competitor based on an open process that included disabled groups. Diebold executives appeared confused when encountering election officials who made an intelligent choice."
Wow..... just wow.... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news, a Toyota dealer is suing a man who bought a Honda, because "based on the criteria set out by the purchaser, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence." Actually, Toyoto is a decent manufacturer, make it a Yugo dealer.
Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:2, Interesting)
This is win-win: either Diebold wastes a bunch of money, or some corrupt people are exposed. Yay.
Seems reasonable to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong actor, right technique. Based on security issues alone, we know Diebold is always the wrong choice. Just by a knee jerk methodology, we could keep the machines out of people's hands for another few months each time. It would generate some press, if nothing else.
LBJ wanted his opponent accused of having sex with barnyard animals. It wasn't that he thought the charge would stick -- he wanted people to hear the candidate deny it. In this case, the response will be "well, your software is a joke -- completely insecure." We'll get to hear Diebold deny the charge. Any suit brought to force reopening analysis before purchase of Diebold's stuff would mean that, once again, they'd have to say "No, our software isn't laughably insecure. No the fact the our code showed up on the Internet isn't a problem. No, our keys are not from a hotel minibar and orderable over the Internet, and no, they're not all the same. No, we didn't miscount this race in this way or that race in that way." If they deny it enough, everyone will know that it's true. Oddly, though, in this case it actually WILL be true.
So I think we should also allege that they have sex with barnyard animals.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not quite the right analogy. It's more like if you were deciding between Coke and Pepsi, and told both companies that you'd be selecting on the basis of taste. Suppose now that Pepsi's research shows that people strongly prefer Pepsi over Coke -- but you choose Coke anyway. That's sort of what's going on here.
That said, as I noted in my other post, I don't understand where the actual legal issue is in all this.
How much will this suit cost Diebold? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's especially surprising is that this move comes after a recent Diebold SEC filing suggested that Diebold is considering leaving the voting machine business [arstechnica.com] because the bad PR the company has received is starting to affect its much more important ATM business. Banks don't want to put a machine in front of its customers whose manufacturer gets accused of building shoddy voting equipment every time an election is held.
Try buying heating oil in CT... (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 2: Call them and ask the price of oil next time you need some.
Step 3: Get a load of oil from Oil Company B, who happens to have a better prioce that week.
Step 4: Get your credit account cancelled by Oil Company A because they know how often you should need oil and you didn't order form them.
No, it's not a lawsuit, but they're denying you credit for simply buying from their competition.
This is all perfectly legal in the State of Connecticut. It's like driving by a Mobil station to get cheaper gas at Shell, then Mobil cuts up your Mobil card.
Business today seems to run on the notion that if it's not specifically prohibited, we should try and do it, no matter how bad it looks. I get better ethics and learning curves from my third graders.
Think of the case law... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose *that* particular situation is taken care of by the fact you get a machine with Windows whether you want to or not, for the most part, but if this were actually allowed, and actually went for Diebold (God forbid), then this litigenous society will have been taken to a whole new level:
"You made the wrong choice flying SouthWest. Buy a ticket on United now or we'll sue."
"You purchased Fords for your fleet vehicles when Chevy is the obviously better choice. Switch or we'll sue."
etc.
Now that I think about it, consider the NEW Pepsi challenge:
"I like the taste of cup A."
"You've made the wrong choice. Say you like what's in cup B or we'll sue."
"Um...I like the taste of cup B?"
"Great! Tell us why!"
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I read TFA, and found that they're not suggesting anything improper happened in the purchasing process, just that they'd have liked to have won and would like the court to say that they did. Their case really does appear to be as eye-rollingly, barking-at-the-moon insane as the summary makes it sound.
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, I smell a possible counter brewing. After all, it does create an anti-competitive atmosphere, to say the least. And think about this... State sends out something for bid, state fears risk of legal action from highest-priced competitor, state is forced to purchase based on fear instead of some cost-quality ratio, = you pay more for your public services and gain the risk of poorer quality. What a deal! I can't think of any other examples of this for contract bids involving the state -- but then I'm probably a little naive when it come to the details of contract bids. I'm thinking that, unless there was some pre-existing contractual agreement (although, based on the article, it seemed that the bidding process was carried out legally) Diebold may be on some very thin ice!
SOP Public Agency Contracting (Score:3, Interesting)
When the 600 lb. gorilla doesn't get the contract these are some of the tricks:
1. Back-room negotiating with the agency. (re: Microsoft/ODF in MA)
2. Negotiate with the contract winner to have _the contract winner_ become a sub-contractor to the 600 lb. gorilla "or else." Very common.
3. Arrange some campaign donations and kick the issue upstairs to have the contract awarded to the 600 lb. gorilla. (re: Microsoft/ODF in MA)
When those steps don't work, then the litigation flies.
Just because diebold the
Re:Biased Summary (Score:2, Interesting)
Manufacturers. Grrr. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of the size of the contract award the thing went out for open bid - and I was contacted by another printer manufacturer. I won't tell you their name, but their initials are L-e-x-m-a-r-k.
Strongarm tactics ensue. First the local contracting office asked me to define printing and scanning requirements as the Other Printer Company believes they can meet my requirements at a lower cost - but we won't mention the fact that all the supplies I have in stock are from the Printer Company I Wanted To Use and adding another hardware vendor would be a logistical nightmare.
So - starting with the network scanners I start looking at hardware specs. The Other Printer Company says they can meet my requirements, but since a digital sender is an input device as opposed to an output device, I would have to get the new hardware certifiied by the network spies and I don't have time to do that, so for that part of the procurement I got the hardware I requested.
The printers were another matter. Once you've specified dpi, print speed and networking capabilities you've pretty much got to go with whoever brings the lowest bid - so the Other Printer Company won that.
During the acquisition process I felt like I was being strongarmed by the Other Printer Company and since I couldn't give a good reason not to use their hardware I have to use it. If I'd have had a week instead of a day to process the procurement I probably could have.
I have learned that I need to fine-tune my hardware requirements to keep it from happening again - but manufacturers can and will sue the government for buying from somebody else.
This is not uncommon (Score:4, Interesting)
Government acquisition contracts are supposed to go to the best product. Determining "best" is supposed to be based on an objective vendor selection process where certain aspects of each product are given a score, and the aggregate makes the decision. These vendor selection processes are sometimes not written well, often by people who don't really understand what it is they are comparing.
Let me give you an example from one vendor selection I worked on, for Ethernet switches. One of the criteria was "Supported VLANs." The product with the most supported VLANs was given a 1, and anyone less was given a fraction thereof equivilant to how many it supported. In this case, vendor A supported 4096 VLANs, while Vendor B supported 1024 VLANs. In this one criteria, vendor A was four times better than Vendor B, even though we only needed support for, at most, a dozen VLANs, which both devices could easily support.
In this instance, our complaints were heard and the problems were corrected.
However, often, this doesn't happen, and bogus criteria is used to make a decision.
On rare occasions, though, you'll even see vendor selection criteria written by people who've made a decision on which vendor they want to purchase, and the criteria is skewed to ensure that a certain product is purchased. This is rarely corruption, usually it's someone who already "knows" that a given product is better, and is simply trying to "make sure the right decision is made." For example, a Linux zealot writing vendor selction criteria for deciding on whether to go with Linux or Microsoft servers.
The exact vendor selection criteria, often being secret, leaves vendors that had reasonable belief that they should have won completely baffled as to why they lost. Unlike commercial transactions, where there is no recourse, they can bring the case to court to see if there was any improper behavior in the vendor selection process.
This actually benefits the taxpayer, as it gives oversight to procurment which is paid for by your tax dollars.
Just because in this case it's a company nobody likes, everyone is crying foul. But, in reality, it's a Good Thing.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the typical Slashdot half-the-facts synopsis, don't read anything in Diebold protesting this contract. Diebold is after two things: to find out HOW the criteria were evaluated and to appeal the contract award. At this point, neither Diebold nor anyone on Slashdot knows how the candidates were evaluated. Therefore speculation about the validity of Diebold's case is idiotic.
No, I don't have any connection whatsoever to Diebold. I have been involved in years worth of contracting. You'd be surprised how many times I investigated after a contract was awarded elsewhere, only to find out that it was someone on the customer side who had their finger on the scale.
Re:Good move! (Score:3, Interesting)
That Behavior Actively Encouraged in B. School (Score:4, Interesting)
My friend was as flabbergasted as I was.
Diabold - Minibar Key Democracy? (Score:1, Interesting)
voting machine security using a Home Made Key
Minibar keys seem to fit the locks just right.
I am not sure if the USA should trust democracy to people who can't figure out how to put a lock on...
Re:Try buying heating oil in CT... (Score:3, Interesting)
Business today seems to run on the notion that if it's not specifically prohibited, we should try and do it, no matter how bad it looks. I get better ethics and learning curves from my third graders.
Government seems to be going the same way. Alberto Gonzales actually made that argument before Congress when he claimed that the right to habeas corpus was not specifically granted in the Constitution. He then went on to explain other violations of our rights by saying that those exercises of power were not specifically disallowed by the Constitution. He just breezed through the incongruity of those two points of view and totally ignored the fact that all of this flies in the face of centuries of law. The system did not matter, the justification did not matter, logic did not matter. All that mattered was that they get away with doing whatever they want at any given time. The reality is that they will. No one will ever be punished for the abuses of power in our recent history, and corporations will not be punished for their abuses, either.
Re:Diebold's position (Score:1, Interesting)
Most of the time when you're talking about low about low bid contracts you're talking about stuff that a contractor can't screw up and still perform the contract. You buy consumables by low bidding, and sometimes slots of manual labor. You don't want to low bid your voting machines that determine elections though, because you want the best and most robust voting equipment you can afford.
But no, the government isn't obligated to buy things by the lowest bidder. If it were then it would be spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than it already does each year repairing poor performances by contractors. Government acquisitions is a bit arcane and bureaucratic, but it's not intrinsically stupid. Everyone wants to spend money in the least ass-reaming-by-the-public-and-legislature as possible, even if there's a certain amount of waste going on in the shopping process when you're giving someone a check of X amount of the taxpayer's money and they're trying to CYOA about it.
As for Diebold, this is nothing. The inflation of importance to this is a bit screwy, but if the government spending agents crossed all their T's and dotted all their I's then they don't have a case. That's part of the "waste" spending that inflates the price of everything people pay for as taxpayers, providing a (hopefully) absolute trail of paper designed to satisfy any judge or committee that money was properly spent according to the rules and regulations. Worse case, this could be a fishing expedition by Diebold to see if they can't get insight into proprietary processes of their competitors. Seriously, this is all pretty normal in the DoD, and I assume it's the same in more civilian sorts of contracting.
Your suspicions are incorrect. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was on a will-call, no-lock, open account for credit.
I specifically did not lock in this year, for as predicted, prices went down, and I made out better than if I'd locked in.
Not only that, but I've had different people call the same company on the same afternoon as existing no-lock, prospective customer, (and against the current lock-in) and gotten two (three) different prices.
I've been up and down this with the heating oil division of the state consumer protection agency, and they allow that it looks anti-competitive, but there's no law against it, they can't say everyone does it, but they're pretty sure the big ones do.
I lucked out with two smaller dealers, one of which was willing to level with me on the outlook and believed their honest approach would be the better route. They got my business.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, Diebold wants to see the proprietary scoring format used to judge who should be awarded the contract.
Why does that sound familiar?
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Interesting)
My FNEOs (love the acronym!) are techno-illiterate, but they don't want to look stupid in public.
What should Diebold do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Long Answer: I pity diebold. They used to make the world's most secure ATMs. Better than NCR.
Unfortunately the joke of a new CEO, thought that they could follow the success into election voting machines since congress mandated e-voting after the election-stealer Bush won due to hanging chads because hurricane-shocked floridans did not have enough IQ to vote paper votes better and instead spent time spray-painting walls "Go Away Isabel", as if that would make the hurricane go away by magic (the result of living near DisneyLand).
Seeing the "heck of a job" to be done by Diebold in e-voting, the CEO went about buying AccuVote even though internal auditors of Diebold pointed out issues in AccuVote, Inc. The problems of AccuVote did not go away magically when Deibold bought it (IT problems do not go away like financial problems magically). Add to that the "foot-in-mouth" Diebold joker who claimed to "Deliver Florida" to bush since he donated to Bush campaign.
End Result: Non working machines, MS Access using machines (AccuVote was in process of moving to SQL Server when Diebold bought it and scuttled the money donation to MSFT [all ye MSFT haters rejoice]), lotsa smoke due to the chairman's "foot-in-mouth" disease, etc., all conspired to bring Diebold down as a company in both sales and reputation.
What to do: Sell the AccuVote to Carlyle and watch them do an LBO. Concentrate on ATMs and get that oldie Rep. chairman to go hunting quails with Cheney and give Cheney a shotgun filled with steel pellets (not birdshot).
Enjoy Deibold.