First and foremost, I cannot believe I have to explain why it is wrong for any company/government agency to expect a vendor to accede to their request for unlimited changes for their work. I mean yes, people sign and agree on these terms which are legally binding - but is this right, fair, and beneficial to everyone?

Some background:

Mothership.sg published two articles related to GeBIZ (Government Electronic Business) documents that required vendors who bid for their project to agree to unlimited changes requested by the tender issuer.

Subsequently, while many people could see the incredulity of such a requirement, netizens had contrarian comments that fell largely in two camps:

1) The 'not happy don't bid lor' camp:

and 2) The 'vendors can name a price for unlimited changes' camp:

To the 'not happy don't bid lor' camp, surely you do not want a situation where nobody wants to bid for Government work - how would the country function then?

The reality is that there are people who are bidding for such projects, and the issue is whether this situation is ideal for Singapore as a whole.

Unnecessary business costs that has to be passed on to someone

Acceding to requests for multiple changes is time- and resource-consuming. It's a business cost that has to be passed on to someone. I'll explain why it is an unnecessary cost later.

As one comment from the 'vendors can also name a price for unlimited changes'  camp pointed out, the cost can be passed on to the Government in the form of having a retainer with the vendor - which is an advantage to the vendor who may draw out the contract for as long as possible.

The question then is, could the money for a retainer have been saved and put to better use in other Government projects?

The other would be for the vendor to absorb the costs. Absorbing costs and being the most attractive bid for a tender is quite the challenge.

And who works for free, right? Someone has got to work more and for less money, and guess who will be willing to do so?

Put on your unlimited-changes-accepting vendor cap and think - if you have to be price-competitive and yet accede to unlimited changes, but can't ask for a retainer, and labour in Singapore is expensive, what can you do?

Yup, outsourced labour.

Besides business costs, sectors get "hollowed out".

We know how labour MP Zainal Sapari feels about outsourced labour. It's depressing wages. Beyond that, it can also start to make Singaporeans shun certain jobs because these jobs are turning unattractive - like security guards as MP Zainal pointed out.

Beyond just security guards, the rise of the Internet connectivity globally has opened the door to cheaper sources of designers/coders/scriptors/programmers from India/China/Southeast Asia which helps prop up companies here who accede to unreasonable requests like unlimited changes. These foreign labour don't reside in Singapore, and are probably working from their home countries.

If this vicious cycle of expecting unlimited changes from vendors who enable such requests by utilising cheap labour is allowed to continue, what would the prospect of Singaporean designers/coders/scriptors/programmers be like then?

In fact, a recent Straits Times report highlighted that IT talents are in short supply, with about 15,000 vacancies not filled.

Poor planning and decision-making more likely the problem

The deeper problem to ask is this - Why are tender issuers requiring unlimited changes in the first place?

Wouldn't more than reasonable number of changes drain the time and resources of both parties unneccesarily?

If the tender issuer and vendor can't get something right after two to three changes, something is very wrong.

Requiring unlimited changes also speaks volumes about the inability of the tender issuer to communicate what they want to the vendor. Perhaps they don't even have a proper idea or plan of what it is they want to achieve.

Isn't this an unhealthy behaviour to have? And why should we perpetuate it by allowing them the luxury of 'unlimited changes'?

This is one inefficiency of the system that needs to be stamped out - and not encouraged by comments such as 'not happy don't bid lor' or 'you can always put a price for unlimited changes'.

Beyond that, this represents a very good opportunity for the Government to take the lead in showing how it values creative talent and how it can be fair to them.

Related articles:

Ministry of Finance says it is looking into ‘Unlimited Changes’ requirement on Invitation-to-Quote/ Tender doc

GeBIZ Invitation-to-Quote/ Tender doc: This is why modern slavery exists in S’pore

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.