Item # 10 - New CFC Website – Update

[Bob Armstrong]

Item # 10 - New CFC Website – Update

Bob G will be posting on this issue shortly after the opening of the meeting.

[Bob Gillanders]

The office has received queries from at least 5 potential bidders. The long awaited new website should be a reality by New Years.

[Patrick McDonald]

I am wondering if we could get a brief "high level" synopsis of what these bidders are offering?

[Christopher Mallon]

Someone probably should have proofread the RFP. I only just had a look at it now, and there are quite a few errors, not to mention a few things that seem to conflict with each other - for example, the CFC assumes full responsibility for the site once completed, but the RFP asks what ongoing costs the CFC will have to pay the developer? I also don't like the specific inclusion of Paypal in the eCommerce section. Paypal is one way to do things, there are others though and it seems silly really to put restrictions on it like that.

[Aris Marghetis]

Crap, here we go again. I cannot bring myself to support a sloppy website initiative. It reminds me of the last half-dozen website iterations. IMHO, we should consider stepping back, retracting the RFP, making it less imperfect ...

Sorry for sounding negative, but I feel very tight about spending big money!

[Fred McKim]

The RFP was proof-read by someone Bob considered a professional. There will always be complaints, no matter what the final for is.

There is no reason to assume we are going to have a less than perfect final product.

Chris write up your comments and send them to Bob, so we can consider them...

[Garland Best]

Aris, I looked at the RFP, and it seems like a very reasonable first step in getting proposals. Right now it is a request for proposals. The objectives seem reasonably well stated. What weaknesses or omisssions do you see in the RFP?

The key step will be in the review in the bids. Right now we are in the "propose us a stadium" stage. When someone submits a proposal for a stadium, it is not given simply to the lowest bidder. Instead the bids are carefully reviewed for suitability for the task, fit with the surrounding neighbourhood, and economic viability, among other criteria. Often if no suitable bid is proposed, the RFP is withdrawn and rewritten to better capture what is needed.

My only objection is the timeline. It's rushed. For proper execution a timeline of 3-6 months is needed.

Who reviews the proposals?

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Aris, I looked at the RFP, and it seems like a very reasonable first step in getting proposals. Right now it is a request for proposals. The objectives seem reasonably well stated. What weaknesses or omisssions do you see in the RFP?

The key step will be in the review in the bids. Right now we are in the "propose us a stadium" stage. When someone submits a proposal for a stadium, it is not given simply to the lowest bidder. Instead the bids are carefully reviewed for suitability for the task, fit with the surrounding neighbourhood, and economic viability, among other criteria. Often if no suitable bid is proposed, the RFP is withdrawn and rewritten to better capture what is needed.

My only objection is the timeline. It's rushed. For proper execution a timeline of 3-6 months is needed.

Who reviews the proposals?

I am not a specialist but only a user; still do not believe putting together a CMS run website (Drupal or whatever) takes 3-6 months. Also a CMS system is easy to operate/ maintain and comes with its own shopping cart system.

[Garland Best]

My point is that according to the RFP, the entire process, start to end, including the review of the bids, is supposed to be completed within the 3 months.

I envision one month alone being spent on reviewing the proposals, identifying aspects of the work not covered in the proposals, reviewing the website archetichure (sp) providing content, beta testing the site etc will take 3-6 months.

I'm pretty sure as well that an online shopping system can be coded in only a few days to a week. But that's only a fraction of what needs to be done. The issues are content and structure, not code.

[Fred McKim]

We have 11 bids. The process we agreed to starts with Patrick Smale reviewing and summarizing all of the bids for the Executive. He anticipates having this done later this week.

Presumably he'll have a ranking for each. I would expect we'll do a complete review of his information, have a look at the complete information for those we consider the frontrunners and make a recommendation to the Governors.