| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Agencies applying for large contracts - waste of time? Thread poster: Jeff Whittaker
|
|---|
| Alternatives? | Feb 17, 2016 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
In the absence of public procurement legislation contracts would be awarded based on corruption and other unethical behavior. Is that your preferred method of dealing with government agencies?
You've only got to look at who consistently gets awarded contracts, and the relationships between MPs, former MPs, MPs spouses and the board members of the successful companies to realise that while they may be operating within the letter of the law, the whole privatisation/procurement merry-go-round in the financially moral vacuum rejoicing in the name of the "United" Kingdom (insert hollow laughter here) is rotten to the core when viewed by anyone with an modicum of ethical fibre. 'Twas no doubt ever thus, and continues to be so, (unforceable) directives from the equally morally and ethically bankrupt European "Union" or no.
What are your alternatives? I don't know about any government in the world which would award contracts according to a 100 per cent ethical system in the absence of strict procurement legislation? At least the level of corruption in Europe is lower than in some other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, Latin America?).
[Edited at 2016-02-17 13:41 GMT]
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:19
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
....At least the level of corruption in Europe is lower than in some other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, Latin America?)
That may simply be because in Europe we've had centuries to institutionalise corruption so that it doesn't look like corruption. The trouble with all those third-world countries is that it's all out in the open. We know there are cocaine cartels in Mexico who kill and steal, but we hear nothing about how the cocaine ends up in the sophisticated living rooms of London, Paris, and New York. We know about blood diamonds from Sierra Leone but my goodness, don't we admire the diamonds that sparkle on the jewellery of top fashion models!
We've having a bit of trouble with the Russians but give it a couple more generations and they'll have put their children through the best fìnishing schools; by then nobody will be asking any more "where did the money come from?"
"Derrière chaque grande fortune, il y a un grand crime" - Balzac
[Edited at 2016-02-17 14:04 GMT]
| | | | | Fairly obvious starting point | Feb 17, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
What are your alternatives? I don't know about any government in the world which would award contracts according to a 100 per cent ethical system in the absence of strict procurement legislation? At least the level of corruption in Europe is lower than in most other countries of the world.
The level of corruption we get to hear about is lower than the level of corruption we are told happens elsewhere. You may be right, of course, but I suspect Western corruption is simply more subtle.
I would have thought some of the alternatives would be fairly obvious from the situations I described. Pass and enforce legislation whereby the existence of certain personal relationships removes a company from contention in procurement. Likewise politicians (and recent ex politicians) serving on boards of directors. Furthermore, if the ownership of a company bidding for a public contract includes any hint of hiding ownership in the Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Delaware etc. then they are automatically excluded. I'm (obviously) not an expert, but these seem fairly straightforward steps that obviously won't be taken while all of our political and business leaders are in a (no douby entirely legal) mutual back-scratching society as no-one is ever likely to take steps to their personal detriment and that of their social circle.
| | | | | System is flawed | Feb 17, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
In the absence of public procurement legislation contracts would be awarded based on corruption and other unethical behavior.
Not necessarily.
Is that your preferred method of dealing with government agencies?
Obviously not. It should be based on value for money.
When my head of unit needed to outsource a translation he would call a friend or the wife of one of the permanent translators. Is it that system that you prefer?
Properly policed, yes. That is how the real world works.
The system is flawed when an institution is not allowed to hire a specialist translator with real expertise in the field but instead has to pay twice as much to use an agency that then hires a cut-price generalist.
Paying 20p to use a 5p translator when you could have used a 10p translator direct is madness.
PS I'm with Charlie.
[Edited at 2016-02-17 14:13 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| conflict of interest | Feb 17, 2016 |
There are always at least three different persons in each evaluation committee and each person has to sign a note saying that they are not in a conflict of interest situation. If they were in a conflict of interest in spite of signing the note, they would get fired and lose all their pension rights.
Anyway, in the language services industry contracts are being awarded all the time to individual translators or small partnerships, who are not the subsidiaries of corporations located i... See more There are always at least three different persons in each evaluation committee and each person has to sign a note saying that they are not in a conflict of interest situation. If they were in a conflict of interest in spite of signing the note, they would get fired and lose all their pension rights.
Anyway, in the language services industry contracts are being awarded all the time to individual translators or small partnerships, who are not the subsidiaries of corporations located in some tax haven. You just have to check the lists of contractors published on the EU institutions' website. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
If it was just about getting the best translation at the best value, then no client (private or public) in their right mind would ever go to an agency and there would be no need for bureaucratic rules.
Things are different when you need hundreds of €0.20 specialists in different fields and languages and most of whom are not regularly available, because their services are in high demand.
If 1,000,000 words need to be translated into several languages, the overall resul... See more If it was just about getting the best translation at the best value, then no client (private or public) in their right mind would ever go to an agency and there would be no need for bureaucratic rules.
Things are different when you need hundreds of €0.20 specialists in different fields and languages and most of whom are not regularly available, because their services are in high demand.
If 1,000,000 words need to be translated into several languages, the overall result is presumably better if this work is entrusted to an agency than if someone at a company who normally does something else and is not a translator goes out and finds all of the translators and editors needed and organizes and assesses their work (or asks a few friends whether they know any really good translators and editors and sends the work to them).
The same seems true for government bureaucracies. At a certain scale, rules and structured processes seem much more effective than common sense and informal solutions. Both produce a lot of waste and ineffectiveness, but I think that relying on imperfect common sense and decency produces a lot more of both than relying on imperfect systems.
At least the EU has an in-house translation department. My understanding is that, at least in Germany, the private sector started phasing these out several decades ago and now outsources everything without any kind of ability to assess and effectively organize things on their own. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 16:49
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | It is always too strong | Feb 17, 2016 |
Sheila Wilson wrote: Woodstock wrote:
It may or may not be a scam, but in my own opinion not worth the trouble I'm sure some agencies are full of good intentions. But if they win, the temptation to switch to a cheaper translator will surely be very strong, maybe too strong to withstand.
In earlier days when I was not that wise, I have not only filled lengthy forms and other documentation for agencies, but have also spent hours in completing long test translations for them. Once a careless Project Manager (perhaps also a raw like me) informed me a few days later that my test translation has passed. But never was the large project awarded to me. It always goes to a cheaper translator.
Clients who rely too much on test translations for selecting suitable translators should be aware of such malpractices of agencies, so that they really get the best suited translators for their jobs. The translator who does the test translation on which they rely so much, and the translator who actually does their translation job would in most cases be entirely different, and so would be the quality of the test translation and the quality of the final translation of their job.
Clients should reach out to the translator who has been selected on the basis of the translation test and inform him that he would be doing their job, and confirm this later independently that he indeed does it and not someone else.
| | | | | value for money and non-discrimination | Feb 17, 2016 |
Chris S wrote: Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
In the absence of public procurement legislation contracts would be awarded based on corruption and other unethical behavior.
Not necessarily. Is that your preferred method of dealing with government agencies?
Obviously not. It should be based on value for money. When my head of unit needed to outsource a translation he would call a friend or the wife of one of the permanent translators. Is it that system that you prefer?
Properly policed, yes. That is how the real world works. The system is flawed when an institution is not allowed to hire a specialist translator with real expertise in the field but instead has to pay twice as much to use an agency that then hires a cut-price generalist. Paying 20p to use a 5p translator when you could have used a 10p translator direct is madness. PS I'm with Charlie. [Edited at 2016-02-17 14:13 GMT]
The EU system is based on value for money. How do you want to police an informal system based on friendships and relationships? Anyway, if the EU needs highly specialized translators for a very specific subject matter, it launches a call for tenders for experts with a University degree plus x years of experience in this subject matter. Why take the head of unit's special friend and not give a chance to all the real specialists who don't waste their time and money of sending Christmas gifts to decision makers and inviting them to expensive restaurants.
[Edited at 2016-02-17 15:46 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
The EU system is based on value for money. How do you want to police an informal system based on friendships and relationships? Anyway, if the EU needs highly specialized translators for a very specific subject matter, it launches a call for tenders for experts with a University degree plus x years of experience in this subject matter. Why take the head of unit's special friend and not give a chance to all the real specialists who don't waste their time and money of sending Christmas gifts to decision makers and inviting them to expensive restaurants.
How can it be based on value for money when it doesn't even test suppliers? What happens in reality is that a bunch of agencies cut and paste their usual bullshit spiel about quality and ISO, all saying exactly the same thing, and at the end of the day the only differentiating factor is price.
I get the theory, Maria, but the practice is somewhat different. A freelance translator does not normally have the time to jump through the hoops for these contracts. As I mentioned earlier, the one time we did we ended up with zilch. And the situation is even worse with national bodies.
A better system would be to move the project management in-house, bypass the agencies and deal direct with the translators. That way the agencies' cut (taxpayers' money) can be used for something useful, and appropriate translators can be used.
We manage to hire accountants, mechanics, gardeners or whatever without any graft, as do most businesses. It shouldn't be beyond properly audited government agencies to do the same.
| | | | Inga Petkelyte
Portugal
Local time: 12:19
Lithuanian to Portuguese
+ ...
| My experience | Feb 17, 2016 |
Having a less common working language pair among others, I am regularly approached with requests to participate in tenders. Here are my observations:
1. Quality control in the bidding process: I find it at a nill level. Maria says, and I have no doubt in it, that the quality is assured by a description of the methodology applied, a description of resources used, etc.
Pardon me! I've been translating, like many of others, for somewhat two decades and I have no idea how to describe my ... See more Having a less common working language pair among others, I am regularly approached with requests to participate in tenders. Here are my observations:
1. Quality control in the bidding process: I find it at a nill level. Maria says, and I have no doubt in it, that the quality is assured by a description of the methodology applied, a description of resources used, etc.
Pardon me! I've been translating, like many of others, for somewhat two decades and I have no idea how to describe my methodology. On the other hand, the more experince a translator has, the less resources we need. In legal, economic, financial translations, I hardly look at a dictionary, all I need is in my head.
So when I send my CV with one resource only, agencies have to invent something for me to demonstrate a higher quality.
Conclusion: a clear flaw in the QA in such tenders.
2. Not the price but the quality-price ratio.
These past days, I received an email from one agency: sorry to ask you [to participate] again, the last tender was won by another agency that offered lower prices. Do we need more evidence on the selection criteria? Both agencies are from the same country, both are of te same dimension, both are good in their management and project style, so I don't see how the quality could have been the prevailing matter in that case.
3. The change of subcontractors: in my view, it happens all the time. To my experience, no signatures or any documentation as in the initial bidding process are requested. Ive been a replacing one and also a replaced one. When I replaced someone, I just started receiving translations and delivering them done. As simple as that. Signing a translation is something completely beyond my experience. Moreover, the translations are done on Trados or MemoQ, all files are joined together, there is no practical means to sign a translation. So no, I don't see how the EU assures that the translations are done by duly qualified tender participants and not cheap(er) substitutes. In the case where I was replaced, due to my own refusal, I cannot state with certainty but only speculate it happened the same whereI was the replaicing one - no any kind of signatures or forms filled in.
The suspicion of fellow translators that their CV is used but the real work is outsourced to someone cheaper, has seroius grounds.
So is it a waste of time? In most cases - yes. Not only of time but also of money: we are asked to print out various forms, sign them, scan, send back AND to send everything by post, all of it at our own expense. Not every agency asks to post but the printing itself accumulates in the cost over the time.
I loved this:
Dr. Matthias Schauen wrote:
... bidding yourself (maybe with a small team) might not be.
A crazy idea struck my mind - and if, inded, we would cooperate for a bid? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Project management in-house and non-discrimination between agencies and translators | Feb 17, 2016 |
[quote]Chris S wrote:
"A better system would be to move the project management in-house, bypass the agencies and deal direct with the translators. That way the agencies' cut (taxpayers' money) can be used for something useful, and appropriate translators can be used."
Project management is in-house, but the EU is not allowed to discriminate between natural persons and legal persons. Agencies are legal persons and thus have to be granted the same chances of winning a contract as individual translators. And lots of individual translators do win contracts. More with some target languages than others. Thus, for example, there are lots of individual translators translating into German who are listed as contractors of the Commission and the Translation Center. And they are being tested. If their translation delivered during contract performance is no acceptable, they will lose their position on the ranking list. Same applies to agencies.
| | | | | Exellent idea | Feb 17, 2016 |
Inga Petkelyte wrote: I loved this: Dr. Matthias Schauen wrote:
... bidding yourself (maybe with a small team) might not be.
A crazy idea struck my mind - and if, inded, we would cooperate for a bid?
Excellent idea.
| | |
|
|
|
| Defender of the faith | Feb 17, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
Project management is in-house, but the EU is not allowed to discriminate between natural persons and legal persons. Agencies are legal persons and thus have to be granted the same chances of winning a contract as individual translators.
OK, that's a laudable aim. Yet the system is (surprise, surprise) clearly being abused by bidders who say they will subcontract to X and then actually subcontract to Y. Is it your contention that there is no room for improvement whatsoever?
I would respectfully suggest that this....
If their translation delivered during contract performance is no acceptable, they will lose their position on the ranking list. Same applies to agencies.
.... does not serve as a safety net. When we see guides to EU English being produced so that native speakers of English can understand EU translations into English, I suggest the current system isn't working.
| | | | | Interesting info, thanks | Feb 17, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
Project management is in-house, but the EU is not allowed to discriminate between natural persons and legal persons. Agencies are legal persons and thus have to be granted the same chances of winning a contract as individual translators. And lots of individual translators do win contracts. More with some target languages than others. Thus, for example, there are lots of individual translators translating into German who are listed as contractors of the Commission and the Translation Center. And they are being tested. If their translation delivered during contract performance is no acceptable, they will lose their position on the ranking list. Same applies to agencies.
If we do really all have an equal chance it's a wonder that agencies get awarded any contracts at all, given that they are pricier than us and have lower quality standards...
But I think to some extent we are talking about different markets. My gripe is with Swedish institutions applying EU rules (essentially group-buying translations from five big agencies) rather than the EU itself.
[Edited at 2016-02-17 19:31 GMT]
| | | | | Oh man, what a treasure! | Feb 18, 2016 |
This link is quite eye-opening.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Agencies applying for large contracts - waste of time? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
