This sounds like a good move, but let’s hope the software vendor who just lost this $18 million contract is from out of state, yes?
Anyway, the governor probably saved the Labor Department and business end-users from a mess of transition headaches. Software projects are ugly (and don’t ask me how I know).
on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Carol. Unfortunately, your local employer is losing Montana contracts to out of state vendors. That will divert the flow of MT dollars out of Missoula’s economy. On the other hand, the implementation of these new contracts may save Montanans money in the long run. True Capitalism at work.
on Jan 24th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Wonder how much had been spent prior to this on the implementation of the new software? Maybe nothing, although that wouldn’t have been a good idea, no planning before the software acquisition. So I’d guess some amount of effort is now being flushed along with this purchase. Probably a good decision given the hole we will have not only in this biennium, but the huge deficit caused by using stimulus money to fund on going and on growing state expenditures.
As for in state preference, we all know that it’s prohibited by state law for state and local governments to give in state preference. That was a law requested by contractors themselves. Up until the 1990s, we did have a preference, but other states had “preference if other states have preference” laws, and that kept our contractors from getting out of state bids. So the law was changed and preference was prohibited.
The question becomes, is protectionism a good thing or a bad thing? Our employers getting out of state contracts is a good thing. I’d guess there’s still, even with the great recession, more work in the 49 than there is in Montana.
on Jan 24th, 2010 at 10:20 am
I get the preference issue. There can’t be any, of course and I wasn’t raising any legal or policy issues. But I just wondered who got the shaft here. In Big Picture it makes no difference of course. Money to a firm in Atlanta is just as good as to a firm in Ennis, right?
And yes they probably spent a buttload on consultants to write the RFP.
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100129/NEWS01/1290320/Most+of+governor+s+budget+cuts+need+legislative+OK
Okay, I stole this from the competition. But here’s Dave Lewis, who knows more about state govt finance than most people about their checkbooks, saying the 18 million will not help the general fund deficit, because it’s Unemployment insurance dollars, and no way in hell the legislature will transfer unemployment tax dollars into the giant tax sucking hole that is the state general fund.
The article also explains that, similarly, of the $36 million or so of “savings” all but $900k and change requires legislative approval first.
The Bloviator then starts talking about “bean counters” who are “technically right”. If they’re technically right, then the Blovo is technically…er….uh…ahem….wrong.