Skip to main content

Notice

The new RDA web platform is still being rolled out. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Please report bugs, broken links and provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Stay updated about the web site milestones at https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/.

Update on the RFP

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #125471

    Hi all –
    I totally spaced that I would be on a plane during our next call (tomorrow), and so want to give you all an update. I am sending two messages. One is this update, and the other is my edits to the statement.
    First, I apologize for how long this award is taking, but the contracts office is understandably being very diligent with this one. The RPI contracts officers (Kim and Linda) and I spoke with both vendors last week. Both seem to have similar costs; both are proposing similar support. This is a good thing, and a bad thing. It’s good in that we have laid out the problem in a way that has brought consistent answers. It’s bad in that there aren’t too many distinguishing factors, except for past performance.
    ME is a larger company, and has handled meetings the size of IDW. CMP has handled the last two RDA Plenaries, and helped with side meetings for ICSU/WDS and CODATA, but doesn’t have meetings this large in their stable. RPI has a very slight preference for ME, largely because they’ve had experience with larger conferences, but also because it will give us another meeting planning company.
    I had the action to contact one of the references for ME (Oracle) to see how they are as a planner. As soon as I receive the answer, if it’s positive, the remaining question is whether to go with the known quantity, or go with the one with large-meeting experience. I know you all have expressed a preference to go with the known quantity, but I wanted to make you aware of RPI’s view.
    Regardless, it is possible that the one that doesn’t get the meeting planning contract might be suitable for the abstract submission process.
    **On to tomorrow’s call, if we can come to consensus on the statement, the Sponsorship Committee can start. Yolanda has been approached, and is willing to help. Others? We already have one sponsor lined up for P8 (and P6), and need to get that moving.
    **If the SciDataCon team can put together a plan for getting an abstract submission process together, this will go very quickly from here on out.
    **I am sending a separate message regarding the concept note.
    If there are any questions, I’ll be checking my email. I’m on my way to the ESIP meeting.
    Cheers
    K
    Sent from my iPad – Please excuse the brevity
    Dr. Kathleen S. Fontaine (Kathy)
    Managing Director
    Research Data Alliance/US
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
    Amos Eaton, Room 211
    110 8th Street
    Troy, NY 12080
    P – 518.276.2829
    C – 410.991.6728
    e – ***@***.***

Log in to reply.