Comment 84893

By A Number of Questions (anonymous) | Posted January 08, 2013 at 22:28:15 in reply to Comment 84797

Hi Joey
Even ignoring the sloppy choice of photos and apparent lack of Hamilton IQ or web chops among the consultant's staff, your assertions here raise a number of questions...
1) Did the consultant promise to provide "custom" work in their bid? If so, do slightly modified versions of basic wordpress and SurveyMonkey templates count as such? I'd like to see what the City asked for and what they were promised by the successful bidder.
2) Are there not standard requirements in City RFP's and contracts that mandate that vendors' offerings be provided in accordance with MFIPPA rules? If not, why not? It should be part of the boilerplate.
3) Same questions as in #2, except regarding adhering to disabled access standards.
4) Is this the same level of "service" that this consultant provided to the other municipal clients they brag about about (Calgary, Burlington, Halton, etc.)? If so, were these problems that went unnoticed elsewhere as well or did Hamilton not adequately vet the firm's prior work? Issues like these should have been caught by somebody if they occurred before.
In short, if what you suggest here is true, especially that the collection of the requested data through this site is in contravention of MFIPPA requirements, questions need to be raised not only the about consultant but also the hiring/purchasing policies that led to their employment. If reasonable purchasing requirements are in place in contracts signed by the City here, there should be ample for room for recourse to address this fiasco while it's still in newborn phase.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools