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