Letter: Time to get real about brand name specs

Regarding "Use of brand names in solicitations still a problem," I would like to think that the policy writers take into consideration that, with the limited resources and technical knowledge base, it is far more easy for customers to list an Electronic Bill of Materials, say of 100 items, for which the brand name is simply being used as a benchmark for the specifications of components/products. However, customers do continue to at least use "brand name or equal" in their solicitations. To do otherwise, could lead to overlooking key specifications in the event that new policy forced the removal of the brand name of components and products in request for quotes.  IT vendors are in a far better position to recognize equal and compatible products to satisfy the customer's needs. I believe the policy writers need to get their head of out the closet, realize technical support is limited for the added market research for getting specifications and ensuring nothing is overlooked, not to mention the timeliness of getting the RFQs submitted to vendors and obtaining a solution that best meets the customer's needs. I agree brand name is an issue and probably often abused. But the article seems to [suggest] that "or equal" is being scrutinized and may not be an option in future RFQs. That would be absurd in my opinion.

Anonymous

What do you think? Post a comment (registration required) or send your comment to letters@fcw.com and we will post it for you.