The beauty about telling the truth is that it cuts through distractions such as a $3.5 million lawsuit, and places the focus on where it belongs . . . the facts of a story.
Back on August 7th, 2015 I wrote a post titled The Ohio Effect: Why SciQuest’s condition may be terminal.
In the post, which you can access through the above link, I wrote how a highly placed source informed me that Ohio was looking to make a move away from SciQuest. While I was provided with a number of reasons for the State’s dissatisfaction, the main problem was that the SciQuest method for catalog creation and maintenance was both complicated and costly.
Now I am not sure if this is the post that ultimately led SciQuest to sue me for liable, but it must have been a point of contention for CEO Stephen Wiehe. So much so, that during the company’s Q2 Scoop session, Mr. Wiehe made the statement that my post was wrong, that I was being less than truthful, and that Ohio in his words “love us.”
By the way, here is the link to the post in which excerpts from the Q2 Scoop session – which was sent to me by company insiders – provide the audio of both the VP of Finance and CEO Wiehe himself, talking about the challenges with their technology; A Material Change at SciQuest?
Turning my attention back to Ohio and my August 7th post, this is one of the articles that SciQuest has challenged as being libelous and/or slanderous.
As is the case with all 17 or 18 posts they have listed in the $3.5 million action, I stand by my multiple sources, my research and everything I have written.
The news out of Ohio, is yet another example of the veracity of my coverage of SciQuest.
Without giving away too much information, the State did not renew the contract with SciQuest when it expired in March. In the interim, and as outlined on the web site;
Ohio is currently in the process of updating its financial system which includes the website used to post electronic bid opportunities.
Along with this effort, the state is requesting all current companies who are registered as Bidders register their companies as Suppliers (formerly known as Vendors) in the new system.
While the new system is not currently available, you can still register your company as a Supplier by completing the required forms and remitting to Ohio Shared Services.
In terms of the RFP for the new system, I have not been given a definitive date as to when it will be publicized.
That said, what I do find most interesting, is that despite SciQuest offering a favorable pricing scheme to extend the contract until I presume a new platform was selected, Ohio chose to go with the present “interim system.”
I guess the term “love” means different things to different people.
Regarding the SciQuest Case: For those who want to support this cause so that we can continue to fight for the truth, you can by making a small donation through the following link: http://ift.tt/1RJRHSt
You can follow my coverage of this story on Twitter using the hashtag #SQSLAPP.
30
from Procurement Insights http://ift.tt/1VAqhnb
This content was assembled for you by the YQ Matrix platform
The views expressed in this post and throughout the series are the autor's own and not intended to reflect the views the YQ Matrix platform, its users or any associated organisations.
For the procurement people among you, have a look at the latest YQ Matrix raw material and semi-finished prices. For: Prices on other websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment