John Botscharow wrote: > You are really going to make this hard LOL > > I agree with the strong presence at BETTS, but how does that relate to > the idea of a formal response to Becta? I'm a bit unclear here. Guess > that comes with being a newbie.
Ahhh I see. We had a look at the format of the response they were looking for: http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=36679 and it is definitely out of our (my Co's) league. But this RFP has been known about for some time now: "A contract notice was published in Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) on 6 May 2008, under reference 2008/S 87-118625". I would be very surprised if the Canonical team hadn't al least investigated if they should respond or not. They are looking for "full coverage" solutions however... "The new framework will offer a broad range of commercial, off-the-shelf software and licences together with a range of value-adding support services (for example, but not limited to: sourcing, installation technical support, licence management)." I am not sure if Canonical can provide the whole shebang themselves, but there's nothing stopping them partnering. Becta also do not explicitly state if they will select only one supplier. I would very much doubt it. They've been burned before ;-) Anyway, like I said, I would really have expected Canonical to have at least reviewed the RFP already. Of course, whether they respond or not might be something they'd rather keep to themselves... Al -- The way out is open! http://www.theopensourcerer.com -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
