| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | Agencies applying for large contracts - waste of time? Thread poster: Jeff Whittaker
|
|---|
| Waste of time | Feb 18, 2016 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: 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.
As I remember, the EU wasn't happy with their translations. But an unchanged bidding system is not going to change that, meaning, the ones who work for the least amount of money and still seem to be trustworthy, get the job. A year later, many complaints will again be voiced. Unfortunately, as we know from other bidding systems for our specific profession, it's mostly about being cheap. So if you want a short answer: yes, it's a waste of time.
edited for typo
[Edited at 2016-02-18 16:25 GMT]
| | | | | Improvement not perfection | Feb 18, 2016 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I remember, the EU wasn't happy with their translations. But an unchanged bidding system is not going to change that,
The point about the quality of previous output was part of an effort to obtain an acknowledgement that the current system, which has hitherto been stoutly defended at every turn by the individual quoted, has weaknesses despite apparent safeguards, and therefore could in theory at least be improved. That is all.
| | | | | why treat translation services differently? | Feb 18, 2016 |
Translation services clearly fall under the Public Procurement Directive just as almost all other services. So the contracting authority has to apply this legislation. Both, agencies and individual translators are allowed to tender. The criterion for contract award is the best price-quality-ratio. 60 or 70 per cent of the points are awarded for the foreseeable quality whereas 40 or 30 per cent of the points are awarded for the price. Once contract implementation starts, the incoming translations... See more Translation services clearly fall under the Public Procurement Directive just as almost all other services. So the contracting authority has to apply this legislation. Both, agencies and individual translators are allowed to tender. The criterion for contract award is the best price-quality-ratio. 60 or 70 per cent of the points are awarded for the foreseeable quality whereas 40 or 30 per cent of the points are awarded for the price. Once contract implementation starts, the incoming translations are revised by senior linguists. Subcontracting is allowed but a replacement of subcontractors is subject to the contracting authority's consent. The contracting authority will check whether the new subcontractors fulfill minimum requirements such as a University degree and/or X years of experience with translating subject-matter Y. An equivalent system applies to all services not only translation services. Why have a specific system only for one industry?
I think the only way to protect individual translators, who go through all the trouble of helping an agency to win a contract in the bidding stage and then are not assigned any jobs during contract implementation, is to reinforce the quality checks by the contracting authority's senior linguists and to terminate contracts in case of unacceptable quality. I know that the Commission works with the "fit for purpose" criterion. If the content is rendered accurately (though possibly with less fluency than some of us think is desirable), then it's deemed to be acceptable and the contractor keeps his position on the ranking list and will receive more work in the future.
So the only possibility I see is that individual translators, who fulfill the minimum requirements, ask for higher rates when accepting to be subcontractors. I don't see any legal way of improving the system.
By the way, translators should always read the tendering specifications and the contracts concluded between the contracting authority and its contractor because that's where they will discover the system in place for replacing subcontractors and find valuable information about what is allowed and what is not allowed.
[Edited at 2016-02-18 15:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Why indeed? But then again, why not? | Feb 18, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
Subcontracting is allowed but a replacement of subcontractors is subject to the contracting authority's consent.
Anecdotal evidence would strongly suggest this stipulation is ignored by bidders and not enforced by the EU, would it not? (This is far from the first thread I've seen this flaw mentioned.)
Why have a specific system only for one industry?
I was thinking the very same thing myself as I pottered around getting ready for bed last night (I like to ponder as I potter). On the one hand, the simplicity of a universal system has much to recommend it.
On the other, we all know the potential failings of "one size fits all". We can't expect the drafters of these procedures to know how every industry operates. I was thinking in terms of adjusting the rules where the bidder subcontracts all or much of the work, for example, rather than specific rules for us precious flowers in translation
On the other other hand (!), if the rules don't work for one industry, then sorry, but I say yes, let's have a specific system for that industry (although I stress it seems unlikely to me that we are unique).
I think the only way to protect individual translators, who go through all the trouble of helping an agency to win a contract in the bidding stage and then are not assigned any jobs during contract implementation, is to reinforce the quality checks by the contracting authority's senior linguists and to terminate contracts in case of unacceptable quality. I know that the Commission works with the "fit for purpose" criterion. If the content is rendered accurately ....
I think the Commission is demonstrating muddled thinking, in that case.
If its sole concern is that the output is fit for purpose (and I stress I am entirely happy with that being the sole consideration), it should drop the charade of stipulating rules (rules it seems to have no intention of enforcing) about the process by which that output is produced. Just measure the quality of the output and be done with it.
If it wishes to attempt to ensure acceptable quality of output by making stipulations about the process by which output is produced, it should enforce those stipulations. A quick call/email to (a selection of) subcontractors listed on a winning bid to check they were given an opportunity under reasonable terms to perform the service they are listed to provide is hardly onerous. But if the only way a provider gets dropped is because of substandard output, and never by lying about their subcontractors, then stipulating degrees and experience is a waste of everyone's time (and money).
I would just like to thank you for the effort you've taken to explain how this stuff operates.
Any antagonism I feel is against the process as I perceive it, not against you, I do hope that is clear.
| | |
|
|
|
| No hard feelings | Feb 18, 2016 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Any antagonism I feel is against the process as I perceive it, not against you, I do hope that is clear.
That's alright, Charlie. I think the best way to bring about some change would be to invite Commission representatives via your national translators' associations to discuss this with you. They do listen. Thus, for example, the head of DG T's outsourcing department recently spoke at a IAPTI conference in Bordeaux, France. Also, there is an annual outsourcers' conference here in Brussels, usually in September, where DG T representatives discuss freelance translation issues with anybody who is interested. If anybody wants to attend, they are welcome to stay in my house.
[Edited at 2016-02-18 17:22 GMT]
[Edited at 2016-02-18 17:24 GMT]
| | | |
Woodstock wrote:
have extremely strict regulations about who they will be awarded to, and proof of translators' qualifications is part of a very lengthy vetting process. It may or may not be a scam, but in my own opinion not worth the trouble of putting together all your documentation, submitting it and then maybe or maybe not getting any of the work. The temptation for the outsourcer/contract bidder is to show the gov't agency one set of qualifications, and have the work done by cheaper, less qualified people. However, that is just a possibility. It could all be above board, but it is still up to you if you want to jump through all those hoops, possibly for nothing in the end.
And reasons they didn't talk about rates can be many. A lot of agencies have you jump a lot of hoops before they talk money.
| | | | Woodstock (X) 
Germany
Local time: 07:10
German to English
+ ...
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
And reasons they didn't talk about rates can be many. A lot of agencies have you jump a lot of hoops before they talk money.
That is exactly why when an agency or private person messages me through ProzMail (and it doesn't feel or look like a scam), I tell them my rate first and ask if they are willing to pay it before I agree to do or send anything at all. Guess what? More often than not there is no reply. But sometimes I do hit the jackpot with one or the other of those unsolicited messages and land a good client who sends me interesting jobs regularly. It has happened, but not with tenders. I don't bother with those.
| | | | | The only good tender is tender sirloin — if you're into sirloin, that is | Feb 20, 2016 |
Woodstock wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
And reasons they didn't talk about rates can be many. A lot of agencies have you jump a lot of hoops before they talk money. That is exactly why when an agency or private person messages me through ProzMail (and it doesn't feel or look like a scam), I tell them my rate first and ask if they are willing to pay it before I agree to do or send anything at all. Guess what? More often than not there is no reply. But sometimes I do hit the jackpot with one or the other of those unsolicited messages and land a good client who sends me interesting jobs regularly. It has happened, but not with tenders. I don't bother with those.
Sounds reasonable. I prefer not to be the first one to touch the subject of money, but with an agency I'd make sure my rates were at least in the ballbark before complying with their paperwork requests when they already know my qualifications. If they don't, then seeing the information in a format they're used to can actually help my negotiation position with them. Same goes for a sample, which is the best and most cost-effective form of marketing that's ever existed because you pay like half an hour of your time (not even the monetary equivalent of it) in exchange for having all their attention on your for a moment and making them know exactly how good you are, so it's all the harder to refuse you now, as opposed to the treacherous uncertainty of negotiation with a translation of unknown skill. It becomes harder to resist you or justifying sticking with someone cheaper. So yeah, I prefer to throw that bait first if they ask for it. But signing and scanning a contract before talking about the fee? Ain't gonna happen.
P.S. Tenders were designed without thought to the offerors and the chosen contractor ever recovering their costs. It simply was never thought about. You compete for the privilege of offering your normal services plus probably some additional administrative bother or even substantive work, at a price that's on the lower end of your normal rates at best, which means you barely make any profit if at all.
This is actually why some huge clients aren't going to procure good products or services via their heavily optimized, stringent procurement systems; if you tweak the rules of the game so much in favour, people just aren't going to want to play your game. It's like people looking out to marry someone who's all of: better looking, better educated and better off economically than they are. Not technically impossible, probably has happened a couple of times, but most of those people are going to have to get real or get used to being single.
Same deal with agency contracts, by the way. Their overzealous-to-protect-the-client young padawans of law forget that nobody's going to sign the freaking thing if it's too unfair on the counterparty, which means you shoot your client in the foot.
[Edited at 2016-02-20 02:28 GMT]
| | | | | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
