Periscope Protest Letter Highlights Their Reasons For Challenging Missouri Selection of Perfect Commerce by Jon Hansen

Posted on March 31, 2015


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;

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