Yesterday, and as an update to my December 11th, 2014 post on Periscope, I shared the news that the vendor had filed a formal letter of protest regarding Missouri’s decision to award the contract for the state’s eProcurement system to Perfect Commerce. Below is the actual Protest Letter.
Over the coming days I will focus on two distinct tracks regarding this story.
With the first, I will be talking with industry experts and insiders regarding the merits of the protest on its face value.
In the second instance, I will be investigating reports that Periscope has allegedly – emphasis on the word allegedly – made veiled threats surrounding vendor access to the NIGP Commodity/Services Code. Again, at this point in time I cannot provide confirmation as to the accuracy of these claims beyond the fact that they exist.
Whether or not it is a reflection of sour grapes or simply a positioning tactic remains to be seen. However, the fact that such a question could be raised – with or without merit – speaks directly to my point in the December 11th post. Specifically, should any organization who, either directly or indirectly – holds the custodianship of the NIGP Commodity/Services Code be allowed to pursue government contracts.
Stay tuned.
Just started following the NIGP #CodeGate story? Use the following link to access the Post Archive; https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/nigp-codegate/
Follow my coverage of this story on Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate
On The Go? You can also listen to the audio version of this post as well as others through @Umano https://umano.me/jhansen
30
Procurement Insights 
July 26th, 2016 → 8:24 pm
[…] The two posts you will want to initially focus on are December 11th, 2014 – Up Periscope? Examining Periscope’s acquisition of BidSync with a “Survivor’s” eye and, March 31st, 2015 – Periscope Protest Letter Highlights Their Reasons For Challenging Missouri Selection of Perfect Comm…. […]