Hi Ben,
On 28 June 2010 10:48, Ben Waugh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Mike and John for your feedback. My understanding is that this "mini
> tender" is actually still a tender in the sense that we have to provide a
> clear specification of what we need, and the suppliers have to meet these
> requirements. Once we have put out the tender we can no longer discuss our
> requirements and iterate possible solutions with the suppliers.
Is that true? I thought those European tendering rules only kicked in
if the spend was above a certain value. Your procurement officer at
UCL can probably help you here, but this page looks like a good
starting place
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/procurement_policy_and_application_of_eu_rules_eu_procurement_thresholds_.asp
>
> The advantage, as John says, is to shift some responsibility and risk to the
> supplier. The downside is that we have to come up with a rigorously
> specified figure of merit that we can use to select the winning bid. I think
> this rules out using our own "best guess", but from Mike's comments it
> sounds as if HEPSPEC figures might be available from more suppliers than I
> imagined.
I should have been a little clearer. By "best guess", I meant that you
could infer HEPSPEC scores for those suppliers that didn't quote them
by comparing/interpolating benchmarks derived elsewhere. For example,
one supplier was unable to provide a score for CPUs offered to us
recently, so they guesstimated a figure. By comparing this with what
other suppliers were quoting, we could see that they were in fact
under-estimating the performance of their kit, and so offering us even
better value for money!
That said, I agree with John regarding the shift of responsibility.
Also, you could build your tender so that HEPSPEC performance figures
are a mandatory requirement.
Cheers,
Mike.
>
> Best regards,
> Ben
>
> On 28/06/10 10:33, John Gordon wrote:
>>
>> I am sure Martin can give more detailed advice on the details you ask
>> about but on the general issue of framework agreements we, at RAL, have been
>> hesitant over going that route for T1 purchases. Although there are obvious
>> benefits in reducing the overhead of tenders and in delivery, we worried
>> about the balance of risk. In our EJ tenders we ask the supplier to meet
>> certain requirements in benchmarking, and level of support for SL. They
>> tender equipment that will meet our spec so they are taking some risk of us
>> rejecting it if it doesn't. With a framework agreement we are buying from a
>> shopping list and we make the decision on what is suitable. Our risk of
>> getting it wrong.
>> That said there is less risk with WN so we may get kit from our framework
>> suppliers next year and benchmark ourselves. Disk servers are more difficult
>> though so we are unlikely to go the framework route unless we can set up
>> framework agreements with our trusted suppliers.
>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben Waugh
>>> Sent: 26 June 2010 10:06
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Advice on procuring worker nodes
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> This is an appeal for guidance from both those who have put out
>>> tenders for CPU nodes, and those with knowledge of what makes a good
>>> worker node for ATLAS in particular.
>>>
>>> I know procedures vary between institutions, but I have been advised
>>> by our Procurement department to do a "mini tender" involving the five
>>> suppliers who have framework agreements to supply servers to UCL,
>>> asking for the greatest possible CPU power for a fixed price.
>>>
>>> The HEPSPEC rating is the obvious measure to maximise, but not all
>>> suppliers have the means or inclination to run a specialised benchmark
>>> for a relatively small order, about £40k. How have others done this?
>>> Do you restrict yourselves to the suppliers who already have
>>> experience in dealing with GridPP and can run HEPSPEC themselves, or
>>> do you use other benchmarks or some less direct way of comparing the
>>> CPU rating of the products on offer?
>>>
>>> There are of course other factors affecting job throughput, including
>>> hard disks and RAM. Is there some way of measuring the effect of
>>> these, or would you just set a minimum requirement on both and then
>>> maximise the HEPSPEC? If you would take the latter approach, what is a
>>> sensible trade-off between disk performance and price? Presumably
>>> 10kRPM SAS disks will be better than 7.5kRPM SATA, but maybe a striped
>>> pair of slow disks would be an alternative? And how much disk space do
>>> you allow per CPU core?
>>>
>>> If there is anything else I haven't asked but you think I should
>>> consider, please tell me that too!
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr Ben Waugh Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7223
>>> Dept of Physics and Astronomy Internal: 37223
>>> University College London
>>> London WC1E 6BT
>
> --
> Dr Ben Waugh Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7223
> Dept of Physics and Astronomy Internal: 37223
> University College London
> London WC1E 6BT
>
|