Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures




I agree with Bill.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Carl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:11 PM
> To: Howard Frazier
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
> 
> 
> 
> Howard,
> 
> I have searched all of the IEEE, IEEE-SA and Computer Society 
> rules that
> I can find and have found only the following section of the IEEE
> Policies that deals with competitive bidding on contracts for IEEE
> Standards meetings.
> 
> 	"10.2.16 - CONTRACTING
> 
> 	IEEE Standards meetings may require contracts for 
> various services.
> 	These services include but are not limited to hotel services and
> 	meeting management services.
> 	The IEEE Standards Sponsor committee or designee shall 
> review all
> 	contracts connected with running a meeting. It is 
> encouraged that
> 	these contracts be reviewed by IEEE Conference Services prior to
> 	signing.  Contracts are subject to limitations as 
> defined in Policy
> 	12.6.
> 
> 	All meeting contracts shall be maintained in a readily 
> accessible
> 	file at the IEEE Standards Department for audit purposes.
> 	It is the responsibility of the IEEE Standards Sponsor chair or
> 	working group chair to send a copy of the contract, 
> when executed,
> 	to the IEEE Standards Department promptly for retention 
> within the
> 	IEEE.
> 
> 	In signing a contract, competitive bidding procedures shall be
> 	used whenever practical. If competitive bidding is not 
> practiced,
> 	the IEEE	Standards Sponsor committee or working 
> group chair shall
> 	be prepared to provide justification."
> 
> If you are aware of other rules dealing with the requirement for
> competitive bidding procedures, please provide me with 
> pointers to them.
> 
> My observation about section 10.2.6 is the "conditional 
> shall" structure
> in the last paragraph with a subjective criterion for when 
> the shall is
> to be invoked.  To my reading, the section states that the use of
> competitive bidding procedures is desirable, but not required if you
> think you have a good reason why it is not practical.
> 
> In light of the amount of time and effort required to generate a
> complete RFP, evaluate bids, evaluate bidders and establish evaluation
> criteria (other than I think those guys/gals have the competence we
> think we want, their price seems okay and they are easy to talk to and
> work with), it is not clear to me that the use of a formal competitive
> bidding process is worth it, especially given our limited personnel
> resources for such an effort.  Your mileage may differ.
> 
> The fees that we are considering are not cheap.  However, we believe
> that we want providers with a high level of competence.  The wireless
> working groups, who will be paying a large fraction of the 
> fees as their
> attendees are a large fraction of Plenary session attendees, 
> depend on a
> highly available network to conduct their business.  If you 
> compute the
> loaded cost a high competent network type for the amount of 
> time that it
> takes to maintain and update the equipment, travel, setup, test,
> operate, manage and tear down the network and allow the 
> provider to make
> a reasonable profit, the fees we are looking at are not unreasonable. 
> Again, your mileage may differ.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> wlq
> 
> Howard Frazier wrote:
> > 
> > Bill,
> > 
> > This seems like an awful lot of money to spend on a network that
> > is only running for one week. I believe that this contract should
> > be put out for bids, and according to the SA and Computer Society
> > rules, I believe that it must be.
> > 
> > Howard
> > 
> > Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > 
> >  > All,
> >  >
> >  > Given the 30% increase in Plenary session attendance 
> from 11/02 to 3/03
> >  > and even greater projected attendance at the 7/03 and 
> 11/03 Plenary
> >  > sessions, the $25k/Pleanry session budget networking 
> does not appear to
> >  > be enough.  Given the load and dependence a number of the WGs are
> >  > placing on the Plenary session network, I believe that 
> we need more
> >  > bandwidth to the outside world and we need full-time professional
> >  > network management.
> >  >
> >  > We had a single T1 to the outside world at DFW which was 
> clearly not
> >  > enough and for which we likely set a world record for 
> sustained load.
> >  > We are working on 4xT1 for SF with a cost of something like $8k.
> >  >
> >  > We are also talking with I.D.E.A.L. Technologies about a 
> contract to
> >  > configure, operate and manage the network on a full-time basis.
> >  >
> >  > To that end I make the following motion.
> >  >
> >  > That the budget for the network at a LMSC Plenary 
> session be increased
> >  > from $25k to $30k with a maximum expenditure of 
> $33k/session and that
> >  > the LMSC is authorized to enter into a multi-session 
> contract contract
> >  > for the configuration, operation and management of said 
> network subject
> >  > to the above budget and expenditure limits.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks,
> >  >
> >  > wlq
> >  >
> >  > .
> >  >
> >  >
>