English Chess Forum

I predict that the "winner" of the tender will be UK Chess Challenge persons.

Who would like to bet against me ?

The timescale is laughable for anyone who was not pre-warned about the content of the tender.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:49 am

I predict that the "winner" of the tender will be UK Chess Challenge persons.

Who would like to bet against me ?

The timescale is laughable for anyone who was not pre-warned about the content of the tender.

Yes, how much do you want?

Andrew Martin wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:25 am

A new position of ‘ ECF Slave’

I suspect that this is not a new position but has been established for many years.

Mike Truran wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:59 pm

Regulation No 1 requires this process, regardless of what the Board or anyone else may think of its merits.

What is the mechanism to update Regulation Number 1 ?

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:49 am

I predict that the "winner" of the tender will be UK Chess Challenge persons.
Who would like to bet against me ?
The timescale is laughable for anyone who was not pre-warned about the content of the tender.

It would have been totally unethical to give one party pre-warning, for the simple reason that it would have given that party an unfair competitive advantage. I think it safe to assume that - while we might all have minor (and, in some cases, not-so-minor) criticisms of the ECF - no-one is seriously suggesting it is less than ethical. That said, in this type of situation, the incumbents inevitably start with the advantage of being more familiar with what is involved, and what is needed, than anyone else - and that's a simple fact of life with no blame attaching to the ECF Board.

Nevertheless, it seems to me significant that the Board decided to give the minimum notice permitted by Regulation 1, that is, one month, for bids to be received. I can see that the length of notice had to be weighed up against the fact that the successful bidder, assuming there is one, would require a reasonable lead-in time to prepare for the third and fourth academies of 2019 but - even so - it is hard to believe that, in allowing just one month, the ECF Board did not realise this could deter prospective bidders and particularly those without the advantage alluded to earlier.

I'm not suggesting anything unethical has transpired.

I am suggesting that it is not reasonable to impose such a short time scale to prepare a meaningful and realistic bid.

A board with strong experience in the commercial and business sectors would allow (if an option) more time to encourage a wide and diverse number of bidders.

I suspect the decision will made easy by the total number of bidders.

In procurement process terms - issuing a Request for Information (RFI) or a Prior Information Note (PIN) - to warm the market (such that there may be) up, and get some feedback on the planned tender might have been an approach more likely to lead to a successful outcome. Of course this might have happened informally or formally and there's no reason the forum would know about it.

Time pressures, procurement regulations, etc... always conspire against us in these things. As a CPO once said to me as we reviewed a horrible OJEU process that had to be abandoned and restarted "the road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

Paul

Given the number of people who emailed me throughout January and February, asking to know when the final document would be published, I think it is safe to assume that people who were interested in bidding knew that something of this nature was coming. I am also satisfied that those who were chasing up the tender document's publication are already reasonably acquainted with it.

On the point about ethics, there was one request to have an advanced viewing of the tender document. I declined it.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:38 pm

On the point about ethics, there was one request to have an advanced viewing of the tender document. I declined it.

Obviously correct. For the avoidance of doubt, I would have expected nothing less of Alex.

@Alex - which is why I caveated everything with "Of course this might have happened informally or formally and there's no reason the forum would know about it"

Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:38 pm
On the point about ethics, there was one request to have an advanced viewing of the tender document. I declined it.

Quite right too - I'm not that impressed that the question was asked though.

"I think it safe to assume that - while we might all have minor (and, in some cases, not-so-minor) criticisms of the ECF - no-one is seriously suggesting it is less than ethical."

Not something you would say about the old BCF!

I asked to see it. This was no attempt to gain any advantage. Is it unreasonable for the 'Head' of the Academy to see a document before publication that could seriously affect the future of the project? Maybe a bit more discussion and consultation with the extremely well-qualified coaching staff would have helped to produce a better document.


Anyhow, we are all trying to do our best for the kids and parents. I do get that.

A board with strong experience in the commercial and business sectors would allow (if an option) more time to encourage a wide and diverse number of bidders.

I don't know about anyone else on the board, but speaking as a former work colleague (and team mate!) of Mike Truran, I can assure you that he does indeed have such strong experience.

"Is it unreasonable for the 'Head' of the Academy to see a document before publication that could seriously affect the future of the project? "

No - surely you should have been consulted beforehand?

Phil Neatherway wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:24 pm

A board with strong experience in the commercial and business sectors would allow (if an option) more time to encourage a wide and diverse number of bidders.

I don't know about anyone else on the board, but speaking as a former work colleague (and team mate!) of Mike Truran, I can assure you that he does indeed have such strong experience.

I agree but was thinking of the board as an entity rather than individual members.

I would, of course, include Malcolm as an individual with the requisite experience.