News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Defense Contractor Left Sensitive Pentagon Files on Unpro... by uncoder0 on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @02:11PM (#14454676)
Your answer would be correct, at least in my experience... the amount of times my DARPA RFP's have been shot down by some minor box that didn't get ticked in the RFP process is a bit absurd. We even had a dedicated contract officer who used to work there to help with the process.
Re:Defense Contractor Left Sensitive Pentagon Files on Unpro... by tssva on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @06:33PM (#14456464)
How would you have them decide who is allowed to deviate from the documented RFP process and by how much?

Also not checking all the boxes during the RFP process sends a signal about your ability to do so once the work is awarded.

Re:Defense Contractor Left Sensitive Pentagon Files on Unpro... by BearGoesChirp on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:29AM (#14461094)
>Also not checking all the boxes during the RFP process sends a signal about your ability to do so once the work is awarded.

A false signal that people would be wise to ignore. There are a multitude of examples showing that companies that learn how to check all the right RFP boxes pay no mind to checking any of the 'do a good job and product a good product' boxes. It shows they are good at checking only the boxes that make them money, and the current process is that doing a good job is not a box one's pay depends upon.

Is there any similar evidence that people who fail to check all the RFP boxes also fail to check the "do a good job and deliver a good product" boxes?

Re:Defense Contractor Left Sensitive Pentagon Files on Unpro... by uncoder0 on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:58PM (#14457668)
In the specific cases I'm talking about the 'ticking all the boxes' was rather subjective and not adequately explained in the RFP.