Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:45:34 -0400



    On 6/19/2019 2:51 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

    
        On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM Michael StJohns
          <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        
            suggests to me that the exercise of
              the second extension would only happen if the re-bid
              didn't result in viable offers - including any other
              offers from the incumbent possibly bidding against
              themselves.  

              
          As a process clarification, it is my understanding that
            either the extension occurs or a re-bid occurs, and that the
            recommendations on that point come early in order to allow
            for either one to occur.  Extending the existing contract
            after bids have been received is not one of the described
            possibilities, so any bid by the incumbent would be based on
            a new RFP.   As a former contracting officer, I am sure you
            understand that an incumbent bidding for a contract after a
            new RFP is extremely common.  

          
    That's my understanding as well - it's what made sense from the
      released information - that the current contract would be
      terminated after this next renewal period in favor of issuing a
      new RFP.   Richard seems unconvinced.  

    
    I'm not sure what you mean by "described possibilities" - we'd
      have to wait until the RFP came out to find out the terms or so I
      would think. That said, it is *legally* possible to keep the
      current contract in the back pocket in the event of a bidding
      failure - but again - doesn't really pass the smell test.  I think
      when the the IAB/RSOC sent the notice to the RSE, they
      constructively gave notice of contract termination.

    
    Note that while I'm extremely unhappy with losing Heather, I'm at
      least as unhappy with deciding 18-24 months out that the current
      contract needed to be terminated.  It makes absolutely NO business
      sense to do so in the given circumstances.    Stretches the
      definition of "early" by quite a bit.

    
    Mike

    
          regards,
          

          Ted