Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

For what it's worth ...

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:39 AM Sarah Banks <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> [deleted down to]

> You have basically three classes of deliverables:   One-time (or one-time
> with phases - finish the V3 transition for example); recurring (e.g.
> quarterly project reports), and continuous (technical expertise as needed,
> RPC oversight etc).  Only the first two allow for a reasonable fixed price
> bid.  The last one is going to need something like "For approx 10 hours a
> week, plus full time 3 weeks out of each year commit to provide technical
> expertise in the following areas to the extent possible for the allotted
> hours; increases or reductions in negotiated time commitments may be made
> by mutual written consent".
>
>
> I wasn't trying to be facetious, simply acknowledging that you've stated
> your opinion. We'll review all the comments that come in, and thank you for
> sharing it. I'm not sure how else to put it, but I also acknowledge that it
> sounds cheeky, even though that's not at all how I mean it to be.
>

I'm not a likely candidate to bid on the temporary position, but I have
been a consultant working under contracts since 2016, and I've been looking
at this thread and trying to imagine what likely candidates must be
thinking about whether, and how, to provide bids.

Mike's three-way split seems very helpful to me (and I'm not surprised,
because he has much more experience bidding on contracts than I do).

And I recognize that "do the right thing" is better as guidance than as a
contract deliverable.

Thanks,

Spencer

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest