The illegalities and pointless constraints of some rules present in a large number of submissions

The Client’s Purchasers (whether private or public) who produce a call for tenders often find themselves in the situation of having to “create” the conditions for the production of multilingual services so as to be able to “assure” as much as possible a maximum of quality guarantees from the very beginning.
As those purchasers who make these submissions almost never have themselves informed by their suppliers (our competitors) on the professional culture applied to the modern production of multilingual services, they act purely on intuition.
They establish the rules in their specifications on the natural basis of “good sense”.
It goes without saying that these purchasers plan their specifications by trying to cumulate a maximum of constraints as are suggested to them by their convictions as regards multilingual writing – which are fatally somewhat uninitiated.
This is the reason why they are led as far astray as to fall into illegality, which is moreover unnecessary.
For example, they often demand that the company applying for a call for tenders document the qualifications of their translators and writers employed with CVs. Apart from the fact that these CVs have no factual value since all employees may legally resign or be fired at any time, the illegality consists in the fact that it is the company and not its employees that ratify the contract (signed, it goes without saying, by its managing director or manager).

Contracts which even specify renting workers, instead of service providers

Another possible obstacle to the legality of work legislation is constituted by the rules of a number of specifications which do not constitute the supply of services but rather the hiring of workers. Companies in our sector, seeing as they are not temporary employment agencies, cannot provide workers (who are even required to travel), but only services. There are even legal limits to the search for price savings! Among the “bizarre” requests which verge on “production secrets” or quite simply commercial privacy, we sometimes find requests for sophisticated analyses from an organisational or financial point of view. These already appear to be inconclusive for large multinational companies. For small companies or mini businesses such as the vast majority of multilingual production agencies in our sector, these pointlessly highly detailed analyses often risk being laughable quite apart from being overt commercial impertinence. What is more, these “analyses” are very often unverifiable from an accounting point of view and all the more often lead to declarations that are unfounded or downright false. The need to protect oneself against possible production failures or poor quality does not justify these commercial discrepancies that do not guarantee anything: it is sufficient to be aware of the low value of capitalisation for companies in our sector. And these discrepancies often lead to applicants declaring just about anything or renouncing the call for tenders, to the detriment of the future client.

Is ISO certification a guarantee of quality?

What do you think of "certifications" specific to translation, that are currently being contemplated, or which have already been approved, for example, the DIN standard in Germany?