Re: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
Except that, if it is broke, we may find ourselves in
a world of hurt because we aren't playing by the rules
of our parent organizations.
I for one do not wish to jeopardize the freedoms that
have been granted to us by the Computer Society. They give
us quite a bit of slack because we have demonstrated our
fiscal responsibility. Bill has done an admirable job with
these responsibilities, and I don't want to see him pressured
into crossing any lines for the sake of expediency.
I would not object to a one time deal for the networking
services for the July plenary, provided that any and all
future contracts for networking services at plenary meetings
are open to a competitive bidding process. In particular, if
we are to enter into a long term (one or more year) contract
for networking services, I believe that it MUST BE open to
competitive bids.
Howard
Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:
> 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
>>> >
>>> > .
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>
>
>