RE: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
Bill,
My vote will stand as it is. However, I think that given a year under
this contract, we should be able to field an RFP and evaluate proposals
for a new contract, one year from now.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:32 PM
To: Howard Frazier
Cc: pat_thaler@agilent.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
Gentle EC people,
Now that I have revealed the fees and duration of the agreement that we
are considering with IDEAL, are them members of the EC that wish to
change there votes on the motion on "802 Plenary network expenditures"?
The motion is currently passing.
I need to feedback from others members of the EC.
Thanks,
wlq
Howard Frazier wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
> If expediency is the order of the day, then I will not object to
> going ahead with a one time contract for the July plenary without
> competitive bids.
>
> However, I think it would be completely imprudent to enter into
> a long term (one year or more) contract for networking services
> without getting competing bids. Networking service
> providers are not rare animals, and you can RFP, bid, and sign a
> contract in four months. Any organization that wants to stay in
> business should be able to do this if the service in question is
> important.
>
> I would be happy to volunteer to assist Bill with this process,
> and I am sure that there are other people in 802 who would be happy
> to assist as well.
>
> Howard
>
> pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
>
> > As a past treasurer, I agree with both Bill and Howard. A
competitive bidding process for the contract will probably take about
the same time the similar process takes for meeting management services.
There is no way it would complete by the July plenary and probably not
by the November plenary.
> >
> > It would therefore make sense to enter into a contract for something
like a year. During the run of that contract, 802 should create an RFQ
and go out for competitive bids for the next contract cycle. The motion
doesn't say the run of the proposed multi-session contract. Bill, what
is the intended duration of the first contract?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:11 AM
> > 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
> >> >
> >> > .
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >