Re: [AGA-sc] SFBAAPS bid for the AGA 2006 A/V requirements... (fwd)

[Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>]

I think you nailed it Scott. They don't seem to talk
to each other or have any real organizational ability.


I also think the bid document is to daunting at least
for these folks. I would be glad to help you redesign
it to make it easier to understand. I am not sure that
it isn't easy to understand now but we have to do
something.

Let's not put to much into what this guy says, same
goes for DG, and skids. I guess we need to ask Jim
what is going on. 

I hate to say it but I am losing my patience with
these guys. They are like GWAPA except less organized
and perhaps even less experienced. We have tried
giving them a well documented convention document then
tried spoon feeding them just bits and pieces when
they couldn't grasp it all. I am not sure what to do
now except maybe start planning for a Plan "B".

We still need to continue moving forward with them
until we decide that it just won't work but I also
think we need to set ourselves a deadline on getting
together some type of plan "B".
This way if it doesn't work we will still give our
members an AGA.
I am not saying we need to start our own ICC ACA yet,
but we need to give ourselves a drop dead date by
which we will start the process.

Regards,

Larry


--- "S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm beginning to doubt that these folks talk to each
> other
> much or that they have anyone with any planning or,
> worse,
> organizational ability. 
> 
> I suspect that SFBAAPS is more like most rather than
> an
> exception. We must adapt to the prospects because
> the
> prospects have a devile of atime adapting to AGA.
> 
> Michael suggests that we send out a formal RFP.
> Well, we
> pretty much did; if we could spec out the whole
> convention
> beforehand, we wouldn't need the local club, we
> could
> literally just bid out the local work to some
> laborers. And
> anyway, ff we did put even more "specs" in the the
> document, I think we would just cause even more
> folks to
> not read it. I suspect that the comprehensiveness of
> the
> current "Guidelines and Requirements" doc is simply
> too
> daunting in appearance and therefore, not really
> read. It's
> like showing them a contract full of fine print;
> who's
> gonna read that stuff? Yet, obviously somehow we
> have to
> make our document plainer, easier to read, and more
> inviting, by which I mean, mapping out steps.
> 
> Next year I think we *definitely have to have* a
> fill-in-the-blanks form of requirements document --
> a
> seriously revised version of the current "Guidelines
> and
> Rquirements" doc. I can work on this over the
> holidays, or
> shortly thereafter and  before I get to work on the
> 2005
> IRS filing. But even with a "fill-in" document,
> unless we
> want to leave prospective proposers no latitude at
> all for
> creativity, there will have to be large portions
> where
> "essay" answers are required.
> 
> I'm only suggesting something that might help, not
> solve
> the problem. I fear there will always be those
> wastes of
> perfectly good oxygen that can't understand what it
> means
> to fax a photo release with signature or to plan and
> propose an event, no matter what help you give them.
> 
> sh
> 
> 
> 
> --- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:
> 
> > I thought I would share another impression from an
> > SFBAAPS organizer on 
> > how the bidding process is going.
> > 
> > My thoughts in next e-mail...
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:49:44 +0000
> > From: Michael Laflamme <spicolte@hotmail.com>
> > To: erik@thekrib.com
> > Subject: SFBAAPS bid for the AGA 2006 A/V
> requirements...
> > 
> > [the e-mail begins asking for any changes in A/V
> > requirements as part of 
> > firming up his budget -- snip]
> > 
> > Lastly, I have been on the conheads list reading
> the
> > banter concerning our 
> > convention.   I will preface my comments below
> with the
> > statement that I was 
> > only added to the list a few months ago by Jim, so
> I may
> > have missed some 
> > earlier conversations.  If so, and my comments
> have
> > already been dealt with, 
> > then I apologize.
> > 
> > Concerning your e-mail detailing your frustration
> with
> > our bid.  I understand 
> > your frustrations and let me say that the SFBAAPS
> would
> > be happy to place a 
> > bid. However, before we can accomplish this, what
> we need
> > from the AGA is a 
> > Request for Bid outline. This would include all of
> your
> > "must haves" and your 
> > budget. If the AGA could provide us with a
> standard and
> > customary Request for 
> > Bid we could reply to it with our information and
> show
> > your organization how 
> > the SF bay area would be a wonderful place for
> this
> > conference. We are happy to 
> > do the work and outline how the project would
> proceed
> > before you accept our 
> > proposal but we cannot do so without knowing what
> you
> > have for requirements. So 
> > far, we seem to have only had bits and pieces of
> what is
> > required, via the 
> > e-mail correspondence to our questions.
> > 
> > By stating that we should look at other cities
> bids, are
> > you implying that 
> > these cities have provided for all of your
> requests? It
> > seems to me that you 
> > should cull from past meeting and conferences
> those must
> > haves and budgets and 
> > place them into a short Request for Bid and then
> allow us
> > to respond. This is 
> > the most efficient way to get what you want
> without
> > spending countless time on 
> > emails asking questions in order to project manage
> this
> > task.
> > 
> > You mention spending time on the phone back and
> forth
> > ironing out the details 
> > of the last bid. If this was to clear up the fine
> details
> > of the bid, I would 
> > find that acceptable. But, if this was the process
> from
> > the initial contact all 
> > the way up until the bid was accepted, then time
> was
> > wasted on both sides.
> > 
> > During my time in the Air Force, annual
> inspections were
> > customary.  However, 
> > if a section failed an inspection, the blame was
> > essentially their own. The 
> > reason why was simple; The Air Force had detailed
> > instructions and inspection 
> > reports that allowed each section of each unit,
> each
> > base, etc. to prepare and 
> > pass an inspection because all the info needed was
> > presented beforehand. What 
> > would be inspected, what was
> acceptable/unacceptable, all
> > guidelines and what 
> > was needed to accomplish the goal.  Essentially,
> the
> > instructions to prepare 
> > for and pass the inspection were handed to you
> months,
> > even a year, before the 
> > inspection.
> > 
> > These type of guidelines apply here as well. If
> we, or
> > any other bid contender, 
> > could receive a detailed list of what is needed to
> meet
> > the needs of your 
> > annual show, then we only need to fill in the
> blanks and
> > present you with our 
> > bid. This would also benefit the AGA, as it would
> make it
> > much easier for other 
> > local groups to put a bid package together, and
> then the
> > AGA would have several 
> 
=== message truncated ===

_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc