| Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Agencies applying for large contracts - waste of time? Initiator des Themas: Jeff Whittaker
|
|---|
DorothyX (X)
Frankreich
Local time: 11:30
| You still don't get it, after all these years? | Feb 16, 2016 |
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
The EU doesn't offer rates to anybody. It's the independent translators or agencies who are in charge of submitting financial offers. Let's assume the agency offers EUR 0.20 per word. The EU then has no influence on the rate the agency is paying its translators. The agency could pay EUR 0.15 or EUR 0.05 to their subcontractors. It's entirely up to the agency and to its vendors to negotiate a price.
If the price for the client is 0.20, agencies NEVER pay 0.15 to their translators. Why should they if they have heaps of cheaper external translators or in-house personnel?
Yes I submitted an EU tender. Never seen such a bureaucracy. They certainly get lots of false negatives, and certainly miss out qualified translators who have been trained in translating such material. I was one of them.
| | | | | It's not the EU institution's responsibility | Feb 16, 2016 |
if vendors sell their services for low rates to agencies. In my example the EU institution is paying EUR 0.20 per word to its contractor regardless of whether this contractor has a subcontractor or not. And in evaluating offers, 60 per cent of the points are awarded for quality and 40 per cent of the points for price. So it's definitely not the offer with the lowest price that gets the contract but the offer with the best quality-price-ratio. So why would translators complain about this and hold... See more if vendors sell their services for low rates to agencies. In my example the EU institution is paying EUR 0.20 per word to its contractor regardless of whether this contractor has a subcontractor or not. And in evaluating offers, 60 per cent of the points are awarded for quality and 40 per cent of the points for price. So it's definitely not the offer with the lowest price that gets the contract but the offer with the best quality-price-ratio. So why would translators complain about this and hold the contracting authority responsible for something which is beyond its control? What do you suggest the EU institutions should do in order to get high quality translations while still respecting public procurement legislation applicable to all service providers - regardless of the industry concerned (IT services, health services, language services etc.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas 
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 10:30
Mitglied (2014)
Japanisch > Englisch
| Possibilities | Feb 16, 2016 |
DorothyX wrote:
If the price for the client is 0.20, agencies NEVER pay 0.15 to their translators. Why should they if they have heaps of cheaper external translators or in-house personnel?
If they can pay less, why would they pay 0.15? They're agencies. It's a business. Why would they actively choose to make a smaller profit if they can pay a freelancer to get the job done at less than 0.15? Don't blame them or the Commission. Blame the translators that accept less than 0.15 - that's the logical response.
I agree with Maria - the EU is not responsible for this. It should keep its distance. The last thing I want as a taxpayer is the EU bureacracy further extending its reach and spending even more of my money on pointless tasks such as trying to police agencies. Why should they? No laws are being broken.
There are virtually no barriers to entry to become an agency. If a translator wants it badly enough, that person can start a translation agency and do everything that agencies do, including winning tenders. There's nothing stopping any of us other than a lack of willpower and competence.
Yes I submitted an EU tender. Never seen such a bureaucracy. They certainly get lots of false negatives, and certainly miss out qualified translators who have been trained in translating such material. I was one of them.
Potential reasons you didn't get the tender.
1) Compared to other translations made by others, your translation wasn't good enough. A question of technical competence.
2) Your translation was good enough relative to that of others, but you didn't handle the bureaucratic side of things as well as your competition. A question of administrative competence.
3) Your translation was good and your application correct, but other agencies brought personal connections or even bribes to bear. May sound far-fetched, but it's possible. A question of ethics.
Regards
Dan
| | | | | In order to be awarded a framework contract | Feb 17, 2016 |
you don't have to do test translations. The quality points are awarded for other criteria, such as a description of the methodology applied, a description of resources used etc. It's very basic stuff. What they probably want to read is that you apply the processes set out in the EN15038/ISO 17100 standard.
[Edited at 2016-02-17 00:05 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Dan Lucas wrote:
3) Your translation was good and your application correct, but other agencies brought personal connections or even bribes to bear. May sound far-fetched, but it's possible. A question of ethics.
Regards
Dan
I was waiting for that. My Swiss bank account number is XXXXXXXXXX.
| | | | Dan Lucas
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 10:30
Mitglied (2014)
Japanisch > Englisch
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
I was waiting for that. My Swiss bank account number is XXXXXXXXXX.
At last, after all these years you get a concrete return on reading ProZ! There doesn't seem to be much Japanese to English in the EU, so I'm not sure how we'd be able to finesse that, but I applaud your opportunism.
More seriously, if one wants to bid on a tender, basic familiarity with ISO17100 would seem sensible. It's about the least intimidating standard that I've seen.
Regards
Dan
| | | | Tom in London
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 10:30
Mitglied (2008)
Italienisch > Englisch
The trouble is that when an agency asks you for all that information they are taking part in a competitive bidding process across the entire European Union and their chances of success are probably minimal if they have to suddenly start asking random translators for their data.
| | | | | Lazy argument that results in no improvements | Feb 17, 2016 |
Dan Lucas wrote:
No laws are being broken.
If that approach was adopted consistently, we'd still have slavery.
It's also the line regularly trotted out by the most egregious tax-dodgers, so it instantly raises my hackles.
A situation where a contractor can at least heavily imply (if not actually state) that A, B & C will do the work while in fact it will be done by X, Y and Z is at least a public procurement version of bait-and-switch. It is a waste of otherwise productive time for A, B and C. If the EU had been able to procure X, Y, Z honestly at the rates they willingly charge, the EU taxpayer would have saved money. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise an improved, fairer and more transparent system. Although presumably this will not happen unless Juncker's pockets are lined in the process.
| | |
|
|
|
Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:
if vendors sell their services for low rates to agencies. In my example the EU institution is paying EUR 0.20 per word to its contractor regardless of whether this contractor has a subcontractor or not. And in evaluating offers, 60 per cent of the points are awarded for quality and 40 per cent of the points for price. So it's definitely not the offer with the lowest price that gets the contract but the offer with the best quality-price-ratio. So why would translators complain about this and hold the contracting authority responsible for something which is beyond its control? What do you suggest the EU institutions should do in order to get high quality translations while still respecting public procurement legislation applicable to all service providers - regardless of the industry concerned (IT services, health services, language services etc.)
all of them will fill in the same forms and present the same documents thus receiving the same points for quality. Is there a public list to check this up?
| | | | Kay Denney
Frankreich
Local time: 11:30
Französisch > Englisch
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Dan Lucas wrote:
No laws are being broken.
If that approach was adopted consistently, we'd still have slavery.
... when you're working at a rate that puts you below minimum wage unless you do upwards of 6000 words a day for agencies that bully you all the time I don't really see much difference between slavery and translation
| | | | Dan Lucas
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 10:30
Mitglied (2014)
Japanisch > Englisch
| A role for ISO17100? | Feb 17, 2016 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If that approach was adopted consistently, we'd still have slavery.
Fortunately, as common sense seems to be more or less intact, no consequences that repugnant have (yet) been mooted in this thread.
A situation where a contractor can at least heavily imply (if not actually state) that A, B & C will do the work while in fact it will be done by X, Y and Z is at least a public procurement version of bait-and-switch.
Yes. I agree, but the writer of the post to which I was replying was railing (apparently) against agencies taking a cut that may lead to freelancers not getting paid as much as freelancers would like. That's what I was addressing.
With regard to the bait-and-switch issue, my reading of ISO 15038/17100 is that it is in part an attempt to ensure that the persons whose identities are used to win tenders are the persons who actually do the work.
Freelance translators seem not to like these standards and I have criticised them myself in the past. But while I'm generally anti-regulation, I'm starting to think that maybe they can help us prevent the kind of thing you talk about.
Maria has commented on this before, but I can't find the thread.
Maria, as our unofficial EU rep, can you shed a bit more light on whether the EU institutions are working to prevent situations where agencies claim to use qualified translators to win tenders but then use translators with far less impressive qualifications to do the actual work?
Regards
Dan
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnien und Herzegowina
Local time: 11:30
Mitglied (2009)
Englisch > Kroatisch
+ ...
| I would paraphrase your questions. | Feb 17, 2016 |
Dan Lucas wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If that approach was adopted consistently, we'd still have slavery.
Fortunately, as common sense seems to be more or less intact, no consequences that repugnant have (yet) been mooted in this thread.
A situation where a contractor can at least heavily imply (if not actually state) that A, B & C will do the work while in fact it will be done by X, Y and Z is at least a public procurement version of bait-and-switch.
Yes. I agree, but the writer of the post to which I was replying was railing (apparently) against agencies taking a cut that may lead to freelancers not getting paid as much as freelancers would like. That's what I was addressing.
With regard to the bait-and-switch issue, my reading of ISO 15038/17100 is that it is in part an attempt to ensure that the persons whose identities are used to win tenders are the persons who actually do the work.
Freelance translators seem not to like these standards and I have criticised them myself in the past. But while I'm generally anti-regulation, I'm starting to think that maybe they can help us prevent the kind of thing you talk about.
Maria has commented on this before, but I can't find the thread.
Maria, as our unofficial EU rep, can you shed a bit more light on whether the EU institutions are working to prevent situations where agencies claim to use qualified translators to win tenders but then use translators with far less impressive qualifications to do the actual work?
Regards
Dan
You raised good questions, however my questions are not about prevention and reading standards with specific codes, my question is very simple and straightforward: is there a way for us to check they are actually using the translators that helped them win the contract? Any business should be transparent right? How and where can we check it?
| | |
|
|
|
| Contract with the agency | Feb 17, 2016 |
I generally apply for government/EU contracts in my own right.
However, I have sometimes been approached by agencies (sometimes the tendering authority wants one contractor to offer many languages).
My approach now is to ask for a contractual agreement in advance seeking a commitment from the agency that they will give me priority for this work and an agreed rate of remuneration. They need my intellectual property (i.e. translation expertise) to win this bid.
... See more I generally apply for government/EU contracts in my own right.
However, I have sometimes been approached by agencies (sometimes the tendering authority wants one contractor to offer many languages).
My approach now is to ask for a contractual agreement in advance seeking a commitment from the agency that they will give me priority for this work and an agreed rate of remuneration. They need my intellectual property (i.e. translation expertise) to win this bid.
Unsurprisingly, I never hear anything more from such agencies when I make this proposal to negotiate an agreement. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Mirko Mainardi
Italien
Local time: 11:30
Mitglied
Englisch > Italienisch
Lingua 5B wrote:
is there a way for us to check they are actually using the translators that helped them win the contract? Any business should be transparent right? How and where can we check it?
Have agencies specify who carried out what work/project/batch, then EU institutions could simply verify that info by mailing (not emailing) those translators with: "Please visit link X, insert code Y and let us know whether you translated the following: [source] > [translation]".
It wouldn't take much for someone with their resources...
| | | | | Can't believe anyone would try to justify or excuse the EU system | Feb 17, 2016 |
It is a stupid and inefficient system that lines the pockets of the agencies and promotes poor quality by commoditising translation.
I don't blame the cheap translators.
I blame the EU for setting up the system.
And I blame EU and national institutions for using the system indiscriminately.
It means that I cannot get work from government agencies directly unless I compete in a hugely bureaucratic process covering umpteen languages and subjects.... See more It is a stupid and inefficient system that lines the pockets of the agencies and promotes poor quality by commoditising translation.
I don't blame the cheap translators.
I blame the EU for setting up the system.
And I blame EU and national institutions for using the system indiscriminately.
It means that I cannot get work from government agencies directly unless I compete in a hugely bureaucratic process covering umpteen languages and subjects. To try would be a waste of both my time and theirs. They want an easy solution, not 500 piddling contracts.
In the past I've helped various agencies to win these contracts "on my behalf" using my CV and experience. But more recently I've found them giving the work to cheaper translators, partly because they're deceitful disloyal scumbags but partly because they're having to bid so low to get the work in the first place. The EU system is all about price rather than quality.
Interestingly, though, there are still a couple of institutions that insist on the work going to me because they want a decent job. Now if they can do it, so can others. If only they could be bothered.
PS We did once go through the EU process, got the contract - and received absolutely no work at all. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
