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

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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.

I don't think that anything AndyMark sells can be considered "FIRST unique", because their wares are available to any member of the public. And even if some of their items are designed to be used in FIRST, it doesn't preclude an unanticipated use of a product for a non-FIRST application.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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.

"VENDORS must not limit supply or make a product available to just a limited number of FIRST Robotics Competition teams." That sounds like limiting supply.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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

I don't think the idea is to limit custom-built components, so much as to limit buying custom (or exceedingly rare) components. The implication is that if you get your custom items made by a sponsor, for free, you can do what you want. But if you just throw money at the problem, you have additional restrictions.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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?

One might expect that the most likely time to be processing 1 000 FIRST orders would be during the build season. It seems to me that the rule is intended to excuse such delays, even (and indeed, especially) during the build season; see the 2^ndsub-bullet in the definition of vendor. However, the definition of a "normal" order volume is pretty much impossible to discern, when dealing with a company that has no order history for the COTS item in question.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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?

Legal. Since some assembly is required, it's two items. There's really no clean way to restrict this, because of the infinite number of permutations of assemblies that could possibly exist. There's nowhere to draw a line.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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?

I'd have to say yes, because I'm confident that AndyMark never suggested that they could ship 10 000 gearboxes at once, to anyone. The problem doesn't seem to be at their end; it's at the vendor's end, because they advertised delivery times which they knew that they couldn't honour. But that makes for an interesting point; currently the rules don't distinguish between a vendor who is backordered on one part, and a vendor who is backordered on every part.

That's a bit of a problem, because it suggests that as soon as you fail to make one component available as advertised, your vendor status is in jeopardy. A strict reading of the rules could interpret this to mean that failing to supply a part to one team nullifies a company's right to be a vendor to all teams. That's obviously insane, and unenforceable, but it seems to be a valid interpretation, based on the letter of the rules.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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?

That's a very good question. It goes back to not knowing what constitutes "normal", because of the small market and small volume of parts. I might be persuaded to say that because a vendor knows that FIRST is its target market, it should attempt to assess the likely buying habits of the FIRST community, and plan accordingly—relying on previously communicated interest seems insufficient. Of course, without knowing the nature of the next game, it's a little tricky for them to draw any conclusions—why would they prepare a sufficient quantity of propellers in advance, unless they knew that it was going to be a water game?