Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/19/2019 2:51 PM, 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.

That's my understanding as well - it's what made sense from the released 
information - that the current contract would be terminated after this 
next renewal period in favor of issuing a new RFP.   Richard seems 
unconvinced.

I'm not sure what you mean by "described possibilities" - we'd have to 
wait until the RFP came out to find out the terms or so I would think. 
That said, it is *legally* possible to keep the current contract in the 
back pocket in the event of a bidding failure - but again - doesn't 
really pass the smell test.  I think when the the IAB/RSOC sent the 
notice to the RSE, they constructively gave notice of contract termination.

Note that while I'm extremely unhappy with losing Heather, I'm at least 
as unhappy with deciding 18-24 months out that the current contract 
needed to be terminated.  It makes absolutely NO business sense to do so 
in the given circumstances.    Stretches the definition of "early" by 
quite a bit.

Mike


>
> regards,
>
> Ted