RE: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
I agree with Bill.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:11 PM
> To: Howard Frazier
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 Plenary network expenditures
> 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
> All meeting contracts shall be maintained in a readily
> 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
> In signing a contract, competitive bidding procedures shall be
> used whenever practical. If competitive bidding is not
> 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?
> 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
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >