RE: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
I continue to vote Approve.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 7:32 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
> > >> >
> > >> > .
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>