Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Draft of an SoW for the 2019 yangcatalog projects

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 18, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/19 4:05 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/17/19 3:54 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've restructured Eric's original draft of this SoW to make what is being bid on a little more concrete.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first two sections look very similar, and it is tempting to combine them. However, from IM conversations with Eric, he feels keeping them separate is useful, and we may choose to award them to different contractors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, we should discuss how long the RFP process is likely to take. Eric was originally hoping to have contractors in place in early February, but I think the RFP process will take at least 6 weeks. If we were to finalize the SoW quickly, we would still be looking at early to mid-March for awarding contracts.
>>>> Can you say how you calculated that amount of time?
>>> Just what past RFPs have taken, assuming we could streamline some stuff at the end.
>>> 
>>> Look at the top of page 5 of this simple RFP for example: <https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RFC-Editor-RFC-Format-CSS-Design-RFP-01-2016-07-20.pdf>
>>> 
>>> We could go faster, but we would have to change the question period.
>> Perhaps we could just have the question period overlap with the first half of the request period,
> 
> I'm not quite following - the question period is the first step. I'm not sure what you're suggesting overlap with? If it's providing answers as they come in, sure, but there's still got to be a time where we cut off questions and ask for bids, so I think the only thing we can do is just shorten the question (and answer) period.
> 
> Compressing the schedule we've seen in the past as much as I think makes sense (for this project anyway), I could see us following something roughly like this (In calendar days assuming we start such that the 3 day answer period does not overlap a weekend, which means day 0 is Mon-Wed, and that this goes out in a chunk of calendar that has no holidays in it - otherwise, we have to let the weekend(s) and holidays stretch this out).
> 
> day  0: RFP Issued
> day  7: Questions and Inquiries deadline
> day 10: Answers to questions issued, RFP Addenda and Update issued
> day 17: Proposals due
> day 24: Selection made, negotiations begin
> day 31: Contract execution
> day 35: Work begins

This looks good to me. If we could do s/day 17/day 14/ (and consequent adjustments in the following dates) I would be marginally happier but I know this is pushing it.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> Again, some of this compression is due to the nature of what this particular RFP is asking for. I would not feel comfortable generalizing it to RFPs.
> 
> Anyone should feel free to say I've overcompressed this.
> 
> In any case, does that capture your suggestion?
> 
>>  and commit to answering questions within 72 hours.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Given the nature of this project, it seems like we could put out the call for 2.5-3 weeks and then hopefully select a bidder within a week or two, ideally.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> RjS
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <sow-2019-yangcatalog-v1.pdf><sow-2019-yangcatalog-v1.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development