Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
A favicon? That’ll be £585 please. (whatdotheyknow.com)
191 points by mathias on Feb 3, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 102 comments



1) They said that the favicon was not quoted from the contracter separately. Clearly the listed price is from some weird government formula. (Although, the original document DOES list it separately)

2) I'll bet something like Google's favicon cost WAY more than that.

3) 600 pounds isn't all that much when consulting work hourly rates are compared against it, and is practically nothing if they paid an actual designer.

It's easy to say "I could do that in 5 minutes." (cite: from the email exchange) But, could you? Including the design? And making sure after you shrunk it down it still looked okay? There's a good chance you'll need to go in there and draw each pixel by hand to make it look right (and it better be right).

Favicons are important, it's a mistake to believe they are always a 5 minute project.

(edited to add "always" to the last sentence)


> 1) They said that the favicon was not quoted from the contractor separately. Clearly the listed price is from some weird government formula. (Although, the original document DOES list it separately)

Exactly. The government paid for a website maintenance contract. This was some of the maintenance done. They probably divided the maintenance done by the fee paid to arrive at the figure quoted. This doesn't account for the actual bulk of the maintenance expense, which is "being on call for maintenance requests".

I paid for a snow-plowing contract this year. There has not been much snow. Accordingly, I've paid hundreds of dollars per snow-plowing actually performed. This doesn't make it a bad deal, because the service I paid for is actually not "come and plow x times", it's "come and plow as many times as required for the year".

TL;DR: There's no story here, at all. Zero. At no point in time did anyone write a cheque for 585 pounds for a favicon. It's conceivable that the government overpaid for the whole website maintenance contract but there's zero evidence of that being true. Everyone commenting should be embarrassed.


arguably, the FOIA request cost the government as much money as the favicon, since these employees would have had to dig through old records to gather the information, as well as respond to the emails


As a 'victim' of a few FOIA requests, I can vouch for how much work goes into them. A favicon? Who cares when you've just involved 2 managers, a director and 4 mid-level federal officials? Some FOIA's were beyond reasonable and duly denied, but the reasonable ones could still take days.


Any costs incurred in responding to Freedom of Information requests are the price you pay for not being sufficiently open in the first place. If you pro-actively published everything that people are entitled to know (i.e. that you would have to release in response to a request), then these costs would be close to zero.


touché


Freedom is not free.


I can vouch for this as a former government worker. While FOIA is vital for transparency in government, there is usually quite a lot of man hours put into fulfilling these requests.


As a taxpayer, I'm quite happy to pay for this type of friction. Because the flip side of that is that government employees are constantly aware of the possibility of a FOIA request. I've no doubt it also places overall friction as everyone is constantly in CYA mode (I've worked in govt before) but even still I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Even tax officials have to be polite to you, even if their objective is to extract a massive fine.


You are of course, correct (as ry0ohki states), but this one FOIA request could lead the way to more competitive favicon quotes from contractors in the future, leaving a net saving for HMG.

Sounds facetious, but it's this transparency that enables public scrutiny (and outrage). The expenses debacle being one such example.


I doubt that anyone, considering how much overhead there is in dealing with a government procurement process, charging anywhere like a reasonable hourly rate, could do it for significantly less.

Oh what, you wanted to be paid to attend that two hour meeting on diversity? Well sorry...


True, but this DOES look like a five minute project. I just screen-grabbed their large logo, put it into Photoshop, reversed the colors and reduced it to 16x16, and it looks almost exactly the same as their icon - no pixel-pushing required. Sure, the colors aren't perfect, but any semi-decent graphic designer could produce that favicon (from the original logo) in 10 minutes maximum. It's not a complicated face, or anything that uses sub-pixel rendering, or anything like that.

EDIT: Here's my 30 second 'inverse and crop' favicon next to their £585 favicon. Not much pixel-pushing going on there... http://fanranked.com/ico_favicon.png


I suspect this is a case of £5 for the final icon, £580 for the other 10 comps and three rounds of meetings you had to go through to decide on the inverted version in the first place.

It's trivial to recreate the end result, but you can't ignore that the end result wasn't a foregone conclusion; ideas had to be floated and presented and agreed upon, etc. Especially with high-politic clients, getting consensus on even a small thing can take a lot of time.


See the Colour of the Bike Shed.


You don't really know the back story. Neither do I, but I've been here before, as I'm sure you must have.

What about the 3-5 comps the graphic artist did that were rejected by committee? Let's say there's 5 hours there. Then a meeting where some others sketch up their own ideas which could be done in MS Paint.

Then the artist gets to go back and implement that idea, which indeed probably took 5 minutes. But you still bill for an hour of your time, right? :)


Agreed, its not like the designer was doing some sort of high-detail pixel art or anything. Favicons can take a really long time. They are an art.

However, this one is not even that good of a job. Its a little off center, the font isn't very clear, hard to read. Clearly just a photoshop resize job. I would expect much cleaner work for that price


Is it possible the £585 is a standard fee regardless of simplicity or complexity? i.e. oil change, $40. (no matter it's an easy access filter or complicated filter change)


The period on yours is nearly invisible and the letterforms are substantially different.

Just because you don't know typography doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a profession.


Ok, lets say it didn't take 5 minutes. Lets say it took 3 hours for a designer to make the favicon pixel by pixel, and 1 hour for a developer to upload the favicon to the server (maybe he only has one arm or something, I don't know, bare with me.) That's ~$230/hr.

Really, you can't argue that this wasn't crazy expensive. However, when it comes to government waste this is a pretty trivial example.


Well, you forgot the 2 hour meeting to get approval of everyone involved, then the changes needed after the team weighed in, another meeting for final approval (assuming there was only one round of revisions - this is government here) and then actual implementation. You also forgot the time it took the designer to come up with the original concept - you can't just sit down and produce a production-ready favicon without knowing what it is you're drawing.

So, lets call it 10 hours, roughly? So 58.50/hr...


Bingo.

And there's no mention of the half dozen favicons the designer had to come up with in order to get one through all the layers of approval involved.


Seriously, the icon design wasn't a foregone conclusion. It could have NOT had the inverted colors. Or just had the I. Or something completely different.

Plus, it wasn't an internal project. It was outsourced. That can cut productivity quite a bit.


I dunno, if a company we hired on contract pulled shit like that we'd fire their ass exactly 3 minutes after the first invoice arrived (and of course we would require weekly invoices with written notice if there was deviation from the original budget.)

The UK government has no such contraints of course.


I'm going to assume ~$230/hour includes some pounds-to-dollars conversion I'm not going to do the math to check.

$230/hr is not crazy expensive. It really isn't. At my last job we charged $160/hr for things like "standing around while the phone company is there", or setting up a Dell computer, or sitting in meetings.

The UK government isn't some ramen startup.

Of course, it may be that you can't actually just FTP it to the server. At my current employer, you can't put ANYTHING on any of our web servers without sitting at the console. Which is an hour's drive away from my main office. Security does funny things to productivity.

Who knows? (Apparently the UK government doesn't, either)


Is that security practice widespread? Seems over the top, I mean a big company like Google would have as much to loose as anyone by breaches of business docs and gmail accounts and you couldn't imagine them having to be at the physical data center to deploy.


You should read up on bike sheds if you don't understand how something as simple as a fav icon can turn into a 10-15 hour endeavor. Particularly when the client is a government agency or a large company.

http://bikeshed.org/


Yeah, I've been personally using also like hour or hours on some favicons (and apple-touch-icons), because they're usually hard to make well. Just shrinking down logo or something is not always possible or a good solution.

(Related on the Youtube favicon subpixel optimization http://typophile.com/node/60577)


There's a lot of stuff I can do in 5 minutes. On occasion I've only done 5 minutes "real work" in a day.

What you're paying for tho' is my 20 years experience, and in those 5 minutes I was composing a command line for a tool that I've spent 5 years working on. Bargain?


You know, when you split it like that, it almost sounds plausible.

So, I looked closely at the PDF:- -"Web development work (Logo and fonts £2,317.50, Favicon £585, E-newsletter £1,080)"

Creating a favicon costs a quarter of logo and fonts? That is literally unbelievable.

Your reasoning has merits but I think they (the web design company + those who commissioned them) do not merit it.


Working for the government, I've seen some fleecing in my day. If contractors bid on a job, they have no problem charging 5X, 10X, or more than what they would in the private sector. Sometimes, it's the government agency that is to blame. Some decision makers will not bid out the contract, but will only give it to a select contractor (no-bid contract). I always assume that these decisions were influenced by bribes or money under the table...something!

Case in point. Accenture bid on a fairly complex web application for tracking "containers" that get transferred to private companies, but ofen the "containers" aren't returned back to the agency. Knowing they were the only contractor bidding on this project, Accenture's bid for this web app was over $5 or $6 million! Last I heard the project was still going through. It's sickening to think about it. That's a lot of money for a small, somewhat complex solution. Any advanced enterprise Java developer could do this project by themself within a year's time for 3%. It's a shame, I say!


Let's do it this way - if I'll make you 50 pixel perfect fav icons in a day you pay me £100 for each one. OK? (It's a huge discount...)


I've charegd a client over $1000 for a one-line script that used SCP to copy a file from one place to another. I even told them upfront it would be a trivial one-line script, and made no pretense it was not a really simple thing to do.

But by the time you cover quoting, invoicing, documentation for the change control process and arranging the required access there is a whole days effort spent on the task.

Just because something is easy to do in an environment where you have complete control and no need to justify and document changes doesn't mean it's easy to do in a production environment, and that's assuming the icon itself wasn't properly hand-crafted pixel by pixel to get the best result.


£1 for the new favicon, £584 for knowing how to do it.


£1 for the new favicon, £266 for the trouble of dealing with government procurement, £268 to compensate for the guilt of charging the government £267 for £1 of work.


£1 for the new favicon, £584 for sitting through multiple approval meetings.


£1 for the new favicon, £1 for knowing how to do it, £583 for knowing my client will actually pay that much.


> £584 for knowing how to do it.

1) Draw crappy icon in any of the zillion free icon editors out there (e.g. IconEdit32).

2) Name the file 'favicon.ico' and upload it to the root directory of the website.

I have a feeling I should be doing consulting in the UK or something.


If I tell a designer to recreate Amazon.com's front page as a Photoshop PSD, they could probably do it in under an hour.

If I tell a designer to create the front page of a feature-packed, online store where every tiny decision has a significant impact on sales figures, and the process has to be run past (and work for) countless people within the organisation - no one is doing that in under an hour!

In this case, there's every chance that the actual decision making process was "resize logo or part of logo to fit a small square", but there's also a chance that other options were considered, a couple of meetings were held to get it approved, etc.


Knowing how to do it naturally includes "knowing how to land the job".

Not as easy as it sounds.


I recognize that there can be a lot of government hoops to jump through that can legitimately make it expensive to do business with them, but I don't see why the government had to outsource that to begin with.

I say that because I remember it taking me only a few minutes to go from knowing nothing whatsoever about them to making my own.


I need a favicon. Will you do it for ten bucks?


I'd be happy to help you for free. My email is in my HN profile.



Some factors to bear in mind before balking:

1) The work was done under a support contract, therefore it was probably billed on time and materials and there may also be a minimum or call-out charge (it's the goal of a lot of companies to be able to charge a daily-rate instead of an hourly one). When they say it's not quoted for separately they mean that they didn't put out an RFP, tender it and agree a fixed price beforehand, they asked Reading Room to do the work under an existing contractual agreement at pre-agreed rates.

2) If the work is of a high priority then the hourly cost is greater.

3) It's a government site therefore they probably have a change management process in place which would mean that before anything touches a production server it has to be signed off. If they do things properly (which I honestly don't believe for a second) then there's no way in the world a developer or designer would be able to touch a production server (let alone two) and this would be someone else's job.

4) the design process may have not been as straightforward as just reducing the size. Perhaps they wanted to try it different colours, etc. ? All we can see is the end result and not the process.

Of course, they may have just been ripped off. But then so have we by making pointless requests under the Freedom of Information Act which isn't going to accomplish anything more than an inflated sense of our own self-worth.


Somewhat ironic that the favicon was for an organisation called ICO.


Also ironic that if you hover over it in Firefox, it says "This web site does not supply identity information." :-)

(The ICO is the UK government body responsible for, among other things, regulating the processing and disclosure of personal data.)


If it's for the creation of a new favicon, so that's actually low. Let say, 3 designer hold a discussion together to exchange ideas and mock-ups. They'll need to know what the website is about, what is its' logo, what should the favicon include... If it takes 3 hours, that's 3 x 3 = 9.

Then a designer will need to draw the real favicon from that mock-up, don't forget that he'll need to make many resolutions and then tests them. Let say that take 2 hours, including a final discussion with the other members of the team.

So in total we have 11 hours, if you consider $150/hour a good rate for a professional, then you'll have $1,650.


If upgrading to a two server environment causes the price of a favicon to balloon to $585, web designers are going to make millions when the government starts hosting in the cloud.


s/\$/£/


The fact that they were ready to supply an honest answer to the inquiry is pretty cool. Regardless of how steep the cost of that favicon was, I'm impressed by how they can be held accountable for it


"I can advised [sic] you that the work needed to put the favicon live was complicated by an old environment (which has since been updated) that caused issues and extended the time taken to carry out the work."

What?


Maybe this is a euphemism for "bunch of old people who don't know how the internet works but were put on the web site steering committee anyway and made a bunch of of absurd requests that had to be fulfilled in order to get approval".


You missed the clarification:

    I can confirm that that the old website 
    development environment was upgraded 
    from one server to two.


How does that have any impact on the cost of a favicon? Unless they were charged per FTP transfer...


Well yes, that and the original maintenance cost doubled.

PS: if you pay attention, right now I am laughing really, really loud, so you might hear me.


I wonder if they were the ones who set the favicon up so it worked on their server.

If that's the case, diving around someone else's code for £585 is pretty cheap.


Behold, the magic of Apache (or pretty much any web server) ...

   Alias favicon.ico /path/to/your/physical/location/favicon.ico
Now please give £300 for selling you this tip.


Here's £150, because you only told me how to do it on one server :P

Curiosity: does that work for subdomains with different favicons?


Quick and dirty solution, for each favicon you'll have a different virtual host inside Apache.

And I fail to grasp the situation where you've got multiple subdomains setup inside the same virtual host config (through ServerAlias), but still having different favicons. But even for this case you can probably come up with something based on mod_rewrite.


The irony is that entering into a debate with them about how much it cost, likely cost far more than £585 in their time spent finding out.

Reminds me of the whole "MP's expenses 'scandal'" - the inquiry cost more than was paid out originally in expenses.

£585 is nothing in that sort of context.


Assuming you are employing hyperbole I'll skip over the idea of it costing more than £585 in their time to find out.

As to the MPs' expenses stuff, I don't know the figures of how much the inquiry cost, but assuming you're right that it cost more, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it.

For one reason, ethics - should police ignore crimes when it appears that the damage caused by the criminal is less than it would cost the police force to pursue it?

For another, the future - If you cut off the problem then it doesn't keep costing money year after year, which would add up to costing more than the inquiry did.


I'm not in the least... It probably took them an hour to find out, reply to the emails etc. They probably had to ask others etc. Their salary, electricity, office overhead etc. I'd expect it came to a fair bit more than £585 to deal with the request for information.

The MP expenses thing was always ridiculous. So an MPs husband mistakenly put in an expense claim for £10 adult movie. Sure it sells papers, but £10 is nothing. We spend more on paper cups in a single room of the NHS.

The rules were ridiculously open to interpretation - second homes etc. Couple that with the fact that MPs get paid next to nothing, and it's no wonder they try to claim expenses for everything.

The answer is to pay MPs more - the going rate for if they're in the business world. If you don't want corruption or taking liberties, you must start by paying a fair wage.


I agree that MPs are relatively underpaid [1] and mistaken adult movie claims are a cause for embarrassment rather than the source of the national debt.

But I don't think it's ridiculous to prosecute MPs who defraud the public by claiming "homes" belonging to other people that they've never even stayed in; even though the prosecution costs far more than the actual offence. Lines have to be drawn. It's expensive to prosecute people for shoplifting too.

[1]underpaid enough to be justifiably anal about claiming expenses; not so underpaid that doubling their income by home flipping is the only way they can feed their families


As far as I know only 2 MPs or so were prosecuted. Considering the enquiry cost several million, that doesn't seem like money well spent.


Money spent on stuff like that can act as a deterrant for the future.. So it might be about break-even.


Can also dissuade good people from going into politics if their every expense will be scrutinize nit-picked etc.

Why put up with all the BS and low pay of politics when you can go work for a big company and run up massive expense accounts for lap dancing clubs or whatever else you feel like?

I'd say the jury's out on it...


Sure, but does it save money by discouraging others from ripping of the public?


If you factor in the time for bothersome, inane e-mails, then their 585 figure makes more sense.


That's actually not a joke. There is probably a whole layer of internal costs for every government agency involved, maintaining the paper trails that allow these questions to be answered in the first place.

There's a near-zero probability that these laws (yes, laws) don't have some impact on the job-management process, which will carry into procedural burdens for vendor to factor into their quoted prices.


Fantastical coincidence: the most expensive favicon.ico was charged to an organization whose branding is a lowercase 'ico'


You know, making an effective favicon probably would take a lot of time. There is just not enough room. I would say it is akin to shoving a complex program into a handful of bytes.

That being said, this particular favicon was not so much designed as resized, and so I totally agree that they got ripped off!


You could assume that the time allocations could be broken down as follows (billable by the hour), which makes it more believable that the total cost could be approx £585.

* 1 hour - Account handler discusses with request with client, adds to studio traffic scheduler

* 2 hours - Icon development by designer

* 3 hours - Developer wrestles with old website platform to try and add relevant <link> to every template

* 1 hour - Project Manager reviews and discusses with client

* 1 hour - Developer deploys to production environment

Making 8 hours at approx £75/h (£600) which all sounds perfectly believable for a London digital studio.

One of the issues with the low barrier to entry to web development is that a class of people exist who believe that the job is entirely a process of making a website (or a favicon) and uploading it via FTP, maybe even installing Wordpress. Complex client relationships, business/deployment processes and old web systems do not factor into their equation for cost. It is important that these people exist, otherwise the cost of being involved with the web would be astronomical for businesses at the lower end, but there _are_ good industry practices for quality work and jobs required at the higher end which they are putting in jeopardy with sensationalist headlines such as this one. Some clients have more available money, but require much more effort than throwing up a few plugins and shooting them an email once it is done. Nor is favicon design a case of taking one of my Silk icons are throwing it through a dynamicdrive favicon maker.

That said, there are still a few examples of UK website procurement which goes beyond what you might call value for money, such as Birmingham Council's website which cost £3m (http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2009/08/04/...), although my concern with that website was not so much the cost but the quality of the work (from a quick scan I don't have the same concerns about the ICO website).


£0.57 ($0.92) per pixel (it was 32x32 :)


It would have only cost £146.25 if they had gone for 16x16 :)


Maybe it includes a listing on http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com ?


At my current salary, it would take me about 10 days of work to reach £585 in straight labor costs.

Honestly, that doesn't seem to be too overly ridiculous to me. There is a lot of work that goes into designing them (and installing them into each page of a website, especially if the favicon was new and not an update). If the company in question didn't have someone perfectly familiar with the site in question, I can see it taking a week or so to get it out the door. What costs would be added by going through the process of taking bids? I wouldn't be surprised if those in themselves ran to £100 - £200.


Am I the only one impressed with the speed and (relatively) decent and detailed response by the government in this case?


I've seen much worse. One being a client billed 7 hours x roughly $150 for... wait for it... modifying a dns entry...

This is not a joke, and it was a pretty sizable dev shop here in iceland


If you are retouching a favicon pixel-by-pixel I can see that racking up a few hours: £585 = $944, so if a designer is say charging $150 to work on a complex logo that would quickly add up. It's actually much harder to create something good in the space of just a few pixels as opposed to a social media icon which might give you 100 pixels.

By the way I noticed yesterday that Hacker news is going to start a designer's directory because there "are so few good designers". I submit the problem really is that there are so few programmers who can be bothered to learn anything about designers or how they work.

In fact the very notion that designers are some secondary set of dumb hands is quite insulting. The reality is that product design (of any sort) should START with a designer and not an engineer. VCs should give more serious thought that an BFA or MFA is worth far more than a CS or MBA.


It only cost 585 pounds to add a favicon to a government website?

I'm surprised it wasn't more.

Working wit the government is not cheap. It is not easy. It is not something that lends itself to lean development shops. That development work is supporting a bevy of sales and process people to deal with government stuff. 585 pounds is cheap


I'd like to know what the cost of getting this response was, sure the icon's expensive but at that rate it probably cost another couple of hundred to give all this information (I know it's internal and not a contractor but someone has to do it).


Scary thing is I encountered a similar 'issue':

The quote was to modify a piece of linux-based kit to work with a regular screen and keyboard instead of a touchscreen. The cost? £3300 for 'development'.

I was asked to grab a piece of sample kit and liaise with the development company to have the work done. To cut a long story short, one of the developers called me back a day or so later and gave me instructions on how to change one line in an XML file from TOUCHSCREEN=YES to NO.

After I had completed the work, I reported back to the man in charge of the project and queried the cost. He said that since it was being passed to the customer it was not an issue.


I spent a long time trying to get mine right, and it's still looks a bit shabby in my mind - http://www.codegrunt.co.uk/ - I'm not actually that surprised by the cost.

This seems to me to be classic non-tech manager thinking - 'how on earth can a 16x16 icon cost that much?!' - but once you factor in all the various factors it's not so obvious. Just because the instinctive reaction is 'that's ridiculous!' it doesn't mean that should override an actual analysis of what might actually be involved.


Your favicon is far more complicated than theirs is: http://www.ico.gov.uk/favicon.ico

That's a 10 minute job.


Wow, that icon sucks


"the work needed to put the favicon live was complicated by an old environment (which has since been updated) that caused issues and extended the time taken to carry out the work."

Sounds like their old CMS system made it difficult to actually add a favicon in the template. I very much doubt the quoted price is just for creating the icon.


My guess is that someone who isn't knowledgeable about web development drew up this list of costs.

Perhaps they transposed a list of requirements / features and assigned the breakdown incorrectly - assigning too much cost/time emphasis to favicon design.


I think another government (France?) paid several million EUR for a jingle for the World Exhibition. It was made by the band Kraftwerk, but still.


common guys! the 53 miles of US border fence cost 1B.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083850/ns/us_news-security/

It is about $300/inch. That would be 53 miles of new favicon/inch ($300 vs 585 pounds - thats 70% volume discount given by Boing to teh US government). Look at the picture at the link above - it is a really hi-tech fence.


<sarcasm>Great point! The government should source all their development work from craigslist from now on!</sarcasm>


I think this is the company: http://www.readingroom.com


I don't know whether I'm disgusted or full of glee that my company is working hard on government tenders.


client -> agency client rep -> in-agency meeting -> agency talent rep -> studio(s) -> studio rep -> studio art director -> studio art grunt -> photoshop / favicon.cc


So is this guy trying to make the point that "design is worthless"?


favicon was not quoted separately, wasn't 585 pounds, non-story


That's disgraceful... I don't know what else to say.


If you've never done work on a government contract you can imagine how this simple favicon might've gone through fifty revisions. On highly technical projects people with no technical skill tend to latch on to the little things they do understand and want to meddle with them endlessly.

This is the "Bike Shed Principle" or Parkinson's Law of Triviality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality)


For those who have too little time to bother with broken links, the article is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality


Dude... where i am from... you ask such a question to the government they will laugh to your face ! should you insist security is called... If you come back you will be thrown in jail... On another note... a FAVICON generator website business startup anyone (of course based out of the UK)? lol


     based out of the UK
Why? The seem willing to pay for favicons :)

     favicon generation:   £0
     installation:         £200
     1-year email support: £200
     --------------------------
     TOTAL (*):            £400
     Savings (*):          £185

     * VAT not included


Yeah that is what i meant. Not "based outside of" ... well i think it is bad english anyway my fault, i meant "based in the UK".


This is why the UK is so broke. Corrupt government procurement procedures. Departments overpay like this for various reasons, having to spend the whole budget is a good one. The UK is very corrupt, but our establishment is very good at hiding it and making it all legitimate. Look up some data about Private Finance Initiatives if you want to be really shocked, a £550 favicon is nothing compared to the billions that have been taken from us. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/24/pfi-nhs

In many of these cases, the procurement procedure is ITSELF contracted out to a third company that will charge a "procurement fee" as a percentage of the value of the final contract. Obviously this incentivises them to pick the most expensive supplier.

I'm trying to find a source but coming up short, google gives me pages and pages of worthless drek from the government websites themselves. I'll try to edit in a link later.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: