tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post116014919025060078..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: DOST Tests Could NOT Have Measured Accuracy of the ACMs!Deany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160215778300590562006-10-07T18:09:00.000+08:002006-10-07T18:09:00.000+08:00Postigo,Fair enough! The discussion we are really ...Postigo,<BR/>Fair enough! The discussion we are really begging is: were there elements of a crime involved in awarding the contract to MPC? And what are the FACTS that point to a probable cause to prosecute the Comelec?<BR/><BR/>I assert that notwithstanding her Conclusions, the OMB's Supplemental Resolution actually contains many FACTS in the form of direct TESTIMONIES by the principal players, that reveal a pattern of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. <BR/><BR/>Let me give you just one example of EACH, with the facts taken from the OMB's own report, but ignored in its conclusions.<BR/><BR/>EVIDENT BAD FAITH: The Comelec's Official Request for Proposal specifically required a 99.9995% accuracy rating for any acceptable system. This requirement was later decided by Comelec to be unachievable and so it changed the requirement to 99.995% AFTER the eligibility phase had already either discouraged or eliminated other potential bidders or offerors. That the Comelec did not then restart the entire bidding process with a revised RFP was EVIDENT BAD FAITH!<BR/><BR/>MANIFEST PARTIALITY: Both MPC and TIMC failed the DOST technical evaluation tests with 8 and 12 KEY REQUIREMENTS not met, respectively. Arguing that the failures of TIMC were somehow more severe than those of MPC, the Comelec awarded the contract to MPC anyway, which UNDENIABLY failed the DOST eval tests. This partiality became even more MANIFEST when one realizes that by law and morality Comelec should have declared a failure of the bidding process and started over. <BR/><BR/>GROSS, INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE: In Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan the Supreme Court defined this concept:<B>Gross negligence is the pursuit of a course of conduct which would naturally and reasonably result in injury to the government or undeserved benefit to private party. It is an utter disregard of or conscious indifference to consequences. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. </B>The acts of Comelec in their entire 2.5 billion peso modernization program smacks of this very thing...for look, they have not a blasted thing to show for 2.5 billion pesos, heedless and indifferent as they have been in commissions and omissions. <BR/><BR/>To me, the more I read the OMbudsman's Report, the more convinced I am that there IS criminal liability being covered up and whitewashed. The FACTS are in the testimonies in her own report!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160203299628633162006-10-07T14:41:00.000+08:002006-10-07T14:41:00.000+08:00what other facts do you want, DJB? all the facts h...what other facts do you want, DJB? all the facts have been laid bare - isn't that the reason why you were able to come up with this stat-analysis? but here's another fact - neither the COMELEC nor the DOST designed the test in a vacuum. IT engineers, software designers, even the occasional educated kibitzer were present. None of them brought this up. I wish they had, so that we don't need to be arguing this point now.<BR/><BR/>Neither did the Supreme Court. And this is exactly what i was saying when the I deplored the fact that the SC didn't get techies to inform their decision. If they had, then the ventialtion of issues would have been more thorough and, ultimately, more satisfying. However, the fact that you're bringing this up now, doesn't change the fact that they didn't.<BR/><BR/>Nor do your arguments conclusively point to any wrong doing, do they? Assuming you are right, the fact remains that the standards used were agreed upon - and therefore binding - on all the disinterested overseers from all sides. The standards were good enough to convince them, even if those standards don't convince you.<BR/><BR/>And not even the petitioners are questioning the DOST's findings. To be accurate, they are arguing that standards shouldn't have been changed midstream, NOT that the standards actually used were faulty - just that they shouldn't have been changed.There's a huge difference. <BR/><BR/>Oh and, by the way, the Ombudsman didn't RE-TRY the case. That case was being tried for the first time. Remember the SC is no trier of facts. The Ombudsman was the first adjudicatory body to have actually based its findings on facts. The FIO based her report (which was released unsigned) on statements made to her by Gus and Maricor, without opportunity for the COMELEC to present rebutting evidence; the Senate practically mirrored the SC's decision - almost to the last comma; and the SC, well, the SC is no trier of facts, like they always say, so if you don't base your decision on facts, aren't you building on sand?Trip Atomichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17629409711014592640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160181012850207362006-10-07T08:30:00.000+08:002006-10-07T08:30:00.000+08:00Postigo:Yes indeed I am attacking the statistical ...Postigo:<BR/>Yes indeed I am attacking the statistical methodology in so far as it is being used to further a patently political end. But you see, it is as if SWS conducted a survey with just 12 respondents, instead of 1200, and then made statistical claims about such an inadequate random sample set. <BR/><BR/>I am taking seriously what is offered in testimony to the Ombudsman as FACTS of the case and following her lead in RE-TRYING the entire case. But these facts have consequences to our view. One notes how the Ombudsmans Report is a re-hash of the defense offered by Comelec when the case was adjudicated, and by its defenders since then. <BR/><BR/>But here I am invoking Laws that were not written by the hand of man. I am invoking laws that call into question the conclusions being urged by the Ombudsman. Conclusions that are here exposed to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>But I have an open mind to FACTS. If there are FACTS of which I am not aware please supply them for me to take into account.<BR/><BR/>And ask any statistician about my main point that THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH TEST MARKS to achieved the required statistical precision to measure 99.995% accuracy.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160177503751098122006-10-07T07:31:00.000+08:002006-10-07T07:31:00.000+08:00Postigo,Hi! thanks for indulging me here. The refe...Postigo,<BR/>Hi! thanks for indulging me here. The reference contains all the mathematical analysis I had to leave out. It's a great article on "How to Judge a Fair Coin" highly educational for anyone who really wants to understand statistical surveys and product testing. Which I see will become a critical aspect of public life from now on. Automation means we must all understand STATISTICS.<BR/><BR/>Here the INCONTROVERTIBLE and GLARING fact, revealed by the Ombudsman's own report, is that the DOST tests did not contain enough test marks to produce the STATISTICAL PRECISION required to tell the difference between a failed machine or a qualified machine.<BR/><BR/>That is the conclusion I draw from the declaration of DOST to the Ombudsman and I ask anyone who disagrees with my scientific analysis to point out why these observations and or conclusions are wrong. <BR/><BR/>I say a 20,000 mark test could only produce at best a margin of error of plus or minus 0.7% in the accuracy rating. That means DOST could not tell the difference between 99.995% accurate and 99.295% accurate. <BR/><BR/>It could not have accomplished what the tests were supposed to: distinguish those machines that pass the requirements from those that don't. <BR/><BR/>The tests have a fatal DESIGN flaw. Not enough test marks!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160166266555881902006-10-07T04:24:00.000+08:002006-10-07T04:24:00.000+08:00DJB, ang husay ng stat analysis mo. Marahil puwede...DJB, ang husay ng stat analysis mo. Marahil puwede pang magamit kung igiit pang gamitin ang ACMs. Sinabi na ng SC na di na pedeng gamitin ang ACMs. Tapos na kaso.kulashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06456677398070447652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1160158638346252692006-10-07T02:17:00.000+08:002006-10-07T02:17:00.000+08:00As to your authoritative reference, here's what it...As to your authoritative reference, here's what it says at the very top of that page: <BR/><BR/>"This article or section does not cite its references or sources.<BR/>You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations."<BR/><BR/>Can't be that authoritative if even the Wikipedia (a work that anyone can contribute virtually anything to, for the benefit of readers)feels the need for a disclaimer that, in effect says: caveat lector - reader beware, this article hasn't been validated. <BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, I notice you only went so far as to say that the tests MAY have been inconclusive. I guess, if like you, we can trash the presumption of regularity in the DOST's performance of its duties, then, yeah, I guess you've made a devastating point.<BR/><BR/>But the test parameters were agreed upon by all stakeholders, DJB. You are attacking the statistical methodology, I think: a methodology that was accepted by technical representatives from all sides. And it wasn't just the DOST at those tests or scrutinizing those results either. engineers were there - some of them may have even been in the same profession you were in. So, i suppose they were all in on the conspiracy to pass off these inconclusively tested machines as a-ok?Trip Atomichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17629409711014592640noreply@blogger.com