|Meeting summary - Feb 17th|
1. RFP submissions received after the deadline will not be considered (were not distributed). Gary will send a letter to advise these suppliers. NOTE: all RFP submission information is to be considered CONFIDENTIAL and not to be distributed or discussed beyond the advisory group.
2. Based on the rankings done/received to date, the advisory group agreed to drop five suppliers from any further consideration. Group members may dispose of their copies of the RFP's from these suppliers (in such a manner that they will not become public).3. There was consensus that there hadn't been sufficient time to do as in-depth an evaluation as desired. We therefore agreed to redo our evaluations for the remaining 8 suppliers. Submit your rankings to the Chair by noon on Tuesday February 23rd so they can be summarized ahead of time for the group (send your totals only, but bring your detailed rankings with you to the meeting). The intent would be to strike the "short list" at our next meeting, notify unsuccessful suppliers and request evaluation units from the short listed suppliers.
Group members are advised to remember that unit costs for suppliers who are proposing selling via the Bookstore will mean that campus customers pay 2.6% GST, whereas purchases via other channels will result in 10.3% GST on top of the base cost - plus PST - except in the case of research purchases. 4. The Chair and Gary Miller of Purchasing Services will follow up on references for the remaining suppliers before our next meeting. A defined list of questions (based on input from discussions by the group) will be used 5. Steve Bendo gave an interim report for the Technical subgroup. They have met twice so far. They were able to agree on some performance benchmarks that are common in the industry. The group felt reliability would have to be based on a longer term review - some trade press reviews may be helpful here. Robustness was deemed to mean the ability of the unit to withstand wear and tear (over 3-5 years) and that all internal parts mounted securely (not loose/hanging. Rather than a point/ranking scheme the group will use a pass/fail format - and will note whether the system meets, exceeds or doesn't meet the specifications as given in the RFP. 6. The Chair has received information regarding an external consultant that has considerable experience in developing and evaluating RFP's for desktop technology. The group was asked whether they felt it would be helpful to seek an neutral perspective for the short listed proposals. It was agreed that the Chair would investigate further to determine what the cost might be and whether any funds could be made available for this purpose.