Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: RFPs and developers

[melanie griffin (melgrif]

Having written a lot of RFPs for state contracts, I concur that the
relationship is all-important for filling in the gaps (nobody ever
anticipates an entire project when first designing it and having the
ability to talk without lawyers is essential to working out the stuff
that got left out) but it is also very important to a) talk it out
fully with those who are purchasing the service (or selling the
cohousing product) and put into writing all of those knowable aspects
of the project that are critical to its success, and weighting the
scoring of the proposals according to how important those aspects are.
The people who will evaluate the proposals need to be involved in this
process.  And it is of course important to have clear deliverables in
the contract, and the standard boilerplate that says icky things like
what constitutes a breach and what state's law will apply to disputes.
It's akin to strong fences making good neighbors. You don't have to be
hostile to have clarity, and you have to respect the contractor and
vice versa to not have disputes break out over every little difference
of opinion.
melanie


On 2/20/08, Louis-H. Campagna <lhcampagna [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am riveted to my screen reading the different opinions about RFPs and
> developers, since this is precisely the issue debated in my project.  This
> was the backstage question to my recent posting: "Purchasing: Competition?".
>  I find it fascinating--and reassuring--to observe how these issues pop up
> independently in many projects.
>
> I am not a successful business person, just a regular Joe.  So I value
> opinions on how to conduct business successfully in the real world, adapted
> to the particularities of a 'non-conventional' kind of real estate
> development.
>
> I hear both sides of the debate.  I hear Sharon's and Craig's input about
> establishing friendly business relationships, in particular with your
> developer.  I hear James input about rigour and precision.  And I hear John
> working on a middle ground.
>
> I don't like the touchy-feely approach to business relationships, I'm no
> good at that.  I guess I personally come more from James point of view. I
> like clear contracts in writing and I expect and demand diligence and good
> faith from my business partners, or else I look somewhere else.  Yet I very
> much hear and understand the other side of the debate, that too much
> emphasis on "getting it in writing" can actually lead to waste,
> maladaptation to needs, dissatisfaction, and loosing out on good business
> opportunities.
>
> Is there a creative middle ground here?  Is there any way to include both
> approaches?  What is the 'Right' way to conduct practical business in our
> specific domain?
>
> Maybe developing good business relationships is like looking for a mate: you
> start out dating, keeping things light, positive, and friendly.  But at some
> point, things need to get serious and you want to write up a clear
> pre-nuptial agreement so that you minimize the risk of either side feeling
> cheated if the marriage doesn't work out.
>
> Who has experience with satisfying both needs expressed in their project
> group: a need to establish friendly, efficient relationships with business
> partners, and a need for thought-out, 'in writing', understandings about who
> does what, when, how, and at what cost, etc.?
>
> What is the 'Best' way to manage business relationships, so as to get our
> project built--but to get it built on time, within budget, and in accordance
> to our dreams, wishes, and true needs?
>
> Louis-H. Campagna
> Cohabitat Québec (project)
> Quebec City
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>