Well-placed sources had claimed the proposed deal had fallen though as the NSW government was unable to meet the threshold number of users required to meet the terms of the licence. The sources said this inability stemmed from a lack of commitment to the proposed deal by IT managers throughout state government departments and agencies. However, Garry Woods, spokesperson for NSW Supply, told ZDNet Australia that the DPWS was still keeping its options open.
Woods said that the decision was yet to passed to higher authorities in NSW government bureaucracy for consideration and that no recommendation concerning the deal had been given.
If the deal goes ahead the NSW government could spend close to AU$100 million and commit up to 120,000 of its desktop PCs to a three-year software licence for Microsoft Office XP.
NSW Supply had not answered ZDNet Australia's requests for comment on the deal yesterday and Woods today declined the opportunity to provide a detailed assessment of how the licence offer had been received throughout the state's government departments.
Woods said any announcement on the deal would be made at a ministerial level but he was unable to provide a time-frame for the announcement.
Any state or federal government who does a whole of state deal with one company isn't looking after the best interests of it's citizens.
Competition is the key to better services and reduced prices, so any deal or policy that requires the use of a particular software package by every government department would only serve to create a monopoly for one company, in effect increasing the cost of the software.
It's important to look beyond the cost to government - although doing a $100 million exclusive deal for software when cheaper alternatives exist isn't exactly a great deal either - when considering the cost of such a contract. As businesses are often forced to use the same software as government, any company able to lock government into using their software would be in a position to charge businesses a higher price for the same software. Businesses of course, would have no choice but to pay.
It would be far more appropriate for government to negotiate a competitive deal with a variety of software vendors - for example Microsoft, Sun, OpenOffice.org and others for office productivity software - and then allow departments to choose their software based on needs and best value.
Requiring departments to pay for expensive MS Office licenses when free copies of OpenOffice.org would meet the needs of the department would only impose an extra burden on tax payers.