"VENDORs", reasonable delays in shipping due to out of stock items, and other errata

[Madison]

This thread is based on discussion that's taken place previously in threads found here and here

FIRST's 2006 rules define a VENDOR as someone that "must be normally able to ship any general (i.e., non-FIRST unique) product within five
business days of receiving a valid purchase request."

It's unclear whether the language about "non-FIRST unique" products is intended to exempt them from shipping delays or if it's meant to disqualify those selling "FIRST-unique" products as vendors altogether. Anecdotal evidence and the success of AndyMark suggests the latter possibility is incorrect, but there is probably some wiggle-room with regard to what is considered a FIRST-unique product.

If the former possibility is indeed true, that means that teams and individuals can offer for sale unique designs (or, in fact, one-of-a-kind designs) with no expectation that such products will be shipped within five days or that they'll be available to multiple teams.

Common sense might suggest that the intent is to prevent teams from using elaborate, custom-built components that are unavailable to other teams.

The rule goes on to further explain that, "certain unusual circumstances,
such as 1,000 FIRST teams all ordering the same part at once from the same VENDOR, may cause atypical delays in shipping due to backorders for even the largest VENDORS. Such delays due to higher than normal order rates are excused."

If the part in question is a "FIRST-unique" part, is it reasonable to consider that many orders during build season is not an atypical circumstance and that the five day turnaround must be maintained, or is it sufficient that a VENDOR be able to meet the imposed deadline at any time during the year?

If I can't get an umbrella during Seattle's rainy season but have no trouble walking into a store in July and getting the pick of the litter, does the umbrella manufacturer qualify as a vendor?

What does the community think about selling two products that are inextricably linked for proper operation separately to circumvent existing rules about the maximum cost for COTS components? Can someone sell all the parts to a gearbox except shafts for $400 and then charge another $100 for the remaining parts?

Are resellers of parts considered VENDORs and to what extent? Consider that I could place an order for 10,000 of AndyMark's shifting gearboxes, creating an enormous lead time for other's expecting to get the same product. I might then double the price of that product and offer it for sale. I can, theoretically, ship the product within five days of receiving an order except in circumstances where my supplier, AndyMark, in unable to provide them quickly enough. Do lead time problems further up the supply chain affect my ability to qualify as a VENDOR?

It's reasonable to expect that someone considering making a product available for sale to FIRST teams would gauge interest before moving forward, but is it similarly reasonable for that vendor's stock on hand to be determined by specific interest expressed before the product is formally for sale and for orders from above and beyond those initially showing interest being subject to increased lead times due to unforeseen demand?

I understand that this is lawyering a rule to death to a new degree and the intent is generally well understood. The more I consider the implication of what's to come, however, the more it becomes clear that there ought to be some more explanation given to what qualifies someone as a VENDOR and what expectations the community and FIRST have regarding the availability of unique products.