Subject: FW: IE update From: Pierce Marlon E Contr ASC/HP Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:18:39 -0400 To: "'fox@csit.fsu.edu'" -----Original Message----- From: Coleman Charlotte D Civ ASC/HPTI Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:48 PM To: 'fox@csit.fsu.edu' Cc: 'Schroeder, Eleanor'; 'gary@arl.army.mil'; 'staatsvr@asc.hpc.mil'; 'rabertj@navo.hpc.mil'; 'cnguyen@hpcmo.hpc.mil'; Pierce Marlon E Contr ASC/HP; 'boys@ccs.nrl.navy.mil'; Zilliox William J Contr ASC/HP Subject: RE: IE update -----Original Message----- From: Coleman Charlotte D Civ ASC/HPTI Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:46 AM To: 'fox@csit.fsu.edu' Cc: 'Schroeder, Eleanor'; 'gary@arl.army.mil'; 'staatsvr@asc.hpc.mil'; 'rabertj@navo.hpc.mil'; 'cnguyen@hpcmo.hpc.mil'; Pierce Marlon E Contr ASC/HP; 'boys@ccs.nrl.navy.mil'; Zilliox William J Contr ASC/HP Subject: RE: IE update All, How does May 2, 1:00 - 3:00 EST look? Completion of last sentence . . . The CO also noted that by allowing everyone to concentrate their scores towards their different areas of expertise diluted the individual scores comparative nature. Which is o.k. He would just need to address that feature in the final report, and thought an individual-to-consensus rationale description would capture that, where it applied. A sentence or two would suffice. -----Original Message----- From: Coleman Charlotte D Civ ASC/HPTI Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:54 PM To: 'fox@csit.fsu.edu' Cc: 'Schroeder, Eleanor'; 'gary@arl.army.mil'; 'staatsvr@asc.hpc.mil'; 'rabertj@navo.hpc.mil'; 'cnguyen@hpcmo.hpc.mil'; Pierce Marlon E Contr ASC/HP; 'boys@ccs.nrl.navy.mil'; Zilliox William J Contr ASC/HP Subject: RE: IE update All, Attached are the updated discussion letters that were sent to the offerors. Thank you for input. The deadline response date is April 26 (HPTi was sent late). I will forward you the responses as soon as I receive them. How does April 30, 1:00 - 3:00 EST look to everyone for a teleconference? The CO is concerned about the lack of trend/pattern/median and the wide range of the individual scores, across the evaluators and relative to the consensus scores. Per his request, would everyone be willing to write a short synopsis that bridges/describes your individual-to-consensus rationale/reasoning ? He also noted that allowing a Thanx in advance, cdc -----Original Message----- From: Coleman Charlotte D Civ ASC/HPTI Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:16 AM To: 'fox@csit.fsu.edu' Cc: 'Schroeder, Eleanor'; 'gary@arl.army.mil'; 'staatsvr@asc.hpc.mil'; 'rabertj@navo.hpc.mil'; 'cnguyen@hpcmo.hpc.mil'; Pierce Marlon E Contr ASC/HP; 'boys@ccs.nrl.navy.mil'; Zilliox William J Contr ASC/HP Subject: IE update All, I apologize for the down time. I just received the discussion letters from the CO late yesterday. Please read them over carefully and offer any comments and/or modifications as soon as you can. I'd like the CO to send them out today if possible. Please respond whether or not you have comments so I'll know when everyone has had their say. Upon receipt of the offerors responses, we will need to reconvene to come up with updated consensus scores. If April 24 remains the deadline discussion response date, perhaps a 1-2 hour teleconference could be scheduled on April 25, 26 or 27. Let me know your availability dates and times. Thanks for your support, Charlotte