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

[Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>]

I really don't know for sure so how about Dec 31.
Since this date is really for us I guess it does not
matter exactly. This date would be just a signal for
us to start implementing Plan B. It would not have to
mean that we are rejecting their bid at that point.
That may or may not come at some other date. 

The only purpose for this date would be to have a head
start on a Plan B if this San Fiasco Bay Aquatic Plant
Society bid falls apart. Hopefully this will not
happen but I am just not sure at this point.

Now, the hard part....when should that date be? And of
course what should they have accomplished? 




--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:

> Larry, what would you propose as a drop-dead date,
> and what should they 
> have accomplished by this date?
> 
>    - Erik
> 
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Larry Lampert wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===

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