Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-06-19 20:51, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     suggests to me that the exercise of the second extension would only
>     happen if the re-bid didn't result in viable offers - including any
>     other offers from the incumbent possibly bidding against themselves. 
> 
> 
> As a process clarification, it is my understanding that either the
> extension occurs or a re-bid occurs, and that the recommendations on
> that point come early in order to allow for either one to occur. 
> Extending the existing contract after bids have been received is not one
> of the described possibilities, so any bid by the incumbent would be
> based on a new RFP.   As a former contracting officer, I am sure you
> understand that an incumbent bidding for a contract after a new RFP is
> extremely common. 

As someone who has been responsible for several govt procurements and
contracts I offer this advise:

1. process is the means to the end, not the end in itself.
2. you never "exercise" a process without having a good sense of
the outcome.
3. never test in production - especially something as complex as a
tender/RFP process. If you don't know what you're doing, ask someone
with more experience.

Maybe we'll do better the next time we have the oportunity to work
with someone of Heather's caliber.

	Best of luck
	Leif