New CFC Website Process Moving Ahead - RFP Issued

[Bob Armstrong]

There has been much discussion over the past year on the fact that CFC needs a new, updated, more user-friendly website ( I think the debate on whether it should be done has concluded some time ago, in the affirmative ).

The CFC has now posted on its website, the Request for Proposals ( RFP ), describing what will be required in bids submitted to develop this new website for CFC. Here is the link to the RFP - http://www.chess.ca/misc2010/CFC%20R...%20Website.pdf .

All bids must be submitted by Oct. 4.

The specifications for the bids indicate that an attractive, functional, and easy-to-use, and to maintain, new website will be developed.

Bob

[Jonathan Berry]

Timeline in the RFP is screwy: Three passages extracted:

All responses to this RFP must be submitted via email in PDF format to info@chess.ca by Monday, October 4th at 3:00 pm EST.

The project must be completed in its entirety by December 1st, 2010.

Bid prices quoted shall remain in effect for a period of not less than 90 days from the bid due date.

So the CFC isn't committing itself to any sort of timely response. Yet it wants the project completed in 58 days minus up to 90 days while the bid price is frozen.

Impossible. But otherwise pretty good by the standards of the 21st century CFC.

[Fred McKim]

Good catch. We'll have to amend that.

[Bob Gillanders]

Oops!

We will most certainly will be flexible on the Dec 1st deadline if we drag our feet on making a decision. Fair is fair.

The intention behind the deadline was that we want somebody who can get the job done in a couple of months, and not drag it out over 6 months or a year.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Site must be compatible with all current browsers (i.e. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, etc. on both Macintosh and Windows platforms)"

In addition mobile devices should be included (at least for most popular - news and ratings/crosstables)

[Jonathan Berry]

Oops!

We will most certainly will be flexible on the Dec 1st deadline if we drag our feet on making a decision. Fair is fair.

The intention behind the deadline was that we want somebody who can get the job done in a couple of months, and not drag it out over 6 months or a year.

Aris made a cogent remark about time at ChessTalk.

I'd add that when cooperation is required from CFC staff, all time bets should be off. For example, if you need to program the web interface to the Access database and you ask the CFC staff a bunch of pertinent questions, the clock should be stopped while you're waiting for the complete slate of answers. Typically one or two things stump them. Nothing against the current staff, but I state this from personal and repeated experience. Fair is fair, eh?

Since you're going to have to republish the RFP anyway, you could introduce per-day penalties for going over 60 days from the date a contract is agreed. No Christmas for bad programmers. Maybe you'd get all the work done for free!?

Incidentally, I'm not planning to bid. I have a pretty good overview of what's going on, but am not a CMS (content management system) programmer. Aside from the built-in disadvantage of not being located near Stratford to provide the mandated training.

[Kerry Liles]

Aris made a cogent remark about time at ChessTalk.

I'd add that when cooperation is required from CFC staff, all time bets should be off. For example, if you need to program the web interface to the Access database and you ask the CFC staff a bunch of pertinent questions, the clock should be stopped while you're waiting for the complete slate of answers. Typically one or two things stump them. Nothing against the current staff, but I state this from personal and repeated experience. Fair is fair, eh?

Since you're going to have to republish the RFP anyway, you could introduce per-day penalties for going over 60 days from the date a contract is agreed. No Christmas for bad programmers. Maybe you'd get all the work done for free!?

Incidentally, I'm not planning to bid. I have a pretty good overview of what's going on, but am not a CMS (content management system) programmer. Aside from the built-in disadvantage of not being located near Stratford to provide the mandated training.

There are other ways to provide training and support (remote access and the like). The CFC has already had all the work done for free hasn't it? Look how that turned out.

[Jonathan Berry]

There are other ways to provide training and support (remote access and the like).

Hmm. Telephone and VNC? You may well be right.

The CFC has already had all the work done for free hasn't it? Look how that turned out.

The casual reader should not interpret this as a stamp of approval for the concept of free development by Mr. Liles. Even though the ratings have been working, and even though the web site is working--not pretty, but working--I believe that Mr. Liles refers to the rocky path upon which we arrived here.

CFC paid for Troy Vail to take computer programming courses, which led to the current on-line rating system. Much work was done in-house, which has associated costs, even if the authors were as close as one can get to volunteers. I thought the troika working at the CFC did a good job putting a shaky system back on firmer footing.

True enough, CFC has never put $100,000 on the table and asked for a rewrite from the ground up, so we don't know how that might pan out. We could look at USCF and FIDE for examples. I do remember the USCF rating system being unavailable (how you say, "offline"?) for almost a year, after one of those. FIDE's development has been more stable, but ultimately I don't know what sort of business arrangement was at its root.