Subject: RE: CGI Proposal Update
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:34:00 -0800 (PST)

You need to work for Sally Beck on this.  She is responsible for this and is 
a Managing Director responsible for all mid and back office, outsourcing or 
otherwise.  She must approve anything that goes out becuase it will effect 
her directly.

Phillipe is also very reluctant to "sell" any systems, especially if we have 
to support applications installed behind their firewall.  We are probably 
fine with most ASP models.  You need to meet with Sally as team on this ASAP.

After meeting with Sally, let me know what everyone agreed on.  I am in all 
day.

Thanks.

GP

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Abbanat, Stephen  
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 4:35 PM
To: Shelby, Rex; Piper, Greg
Subject: RE: CGI Proposal Update

Greg and Rex,

Thanks for the input.  I will try to contact Beth Apollo.  

Here are a few points I think will help.  

? I also read the partnering agreement carefully and sent the revised copy to 
Travis McCullough this morning
? At this time I believe our risk is quite low, as we are not officially part 
of the bid yet
? I will work very hard to keep everyone informed

The following points protect Enron from significant risk:

  1)  We were quite careful about what we sent to CSG (reviewed by Beth, 
David, Rahul and myself)
  2)  We did not quote any price for software or services
  3) The original RFP asked for a custom solution, which CGI is proposing. We 
do not participate in this work.
  4) The option to take a different approach (e.g. leverage existing software 
from a partner) is being proposed by CSG as an alternative approach, but is 
not priced.  The option would be explored during a "make versus buy" analysis 
within CSG's methodology (during the initial requirements and design phase).  
This gives us time to clarify our plans.

I hope these points might mitigate any concerns over the rapid time frame of 
the proposal.  As the proposal is due on Monday, I am not sure if there is 
time to engage a large number of reviewers, but I will ask CSG to copy Rahul 
and hopefully he can get appropriate input.

- Steve

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Shelby, Rex  
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Abbanat, Stephen
Subject: FW: CGI Proposal Update

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Piper, Greg  
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:54 PM
To: Shelby, Rex
Subject: RE: CGI Proposal Update

Who is the lawyer on this?

Can I see a copy of our proposal?

Sally Beck will have to see this first thing Monday morning and should be 
included on all e-mail traffic related to this.

Beth Apollo should be in the middle of this as well Beth Perlman and Rahil.

GP

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Shelby, Rex  
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:12 PM
To: Piper, Greg
Cc: Abbanat, Stephen
Subject: FW: CGI Proposal Update

Greg --

FYI.  Steve Abbanat has been working with Beth and Rahil to drive our 
participation in the CGI proposal.  Here's Steve's most recent update:

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Abbanat, Stephen  
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:06 PM
To: Jafry, Rahil; Berberian, David; Palmer, Mark S.; Perlman, Beth
Cc: Shelby, Rex
Subject: CGI Proposal Update

A brief update:

I spoke with the proposal leads at CGI (Greg Felton and Company) this 
morning, and all appears to be on schedule.

? Greg communicated our joint approach to the client and they are very 
interested
? Greg received Enron's materials and they are more than sufficient for our 
current proposal needs
? I received a draft of CGI's proposed teaming agreement.  I made made edits 
according to my knowledge of Enron's legal policies.  I will forward the 
document to legal if CGI accepts the changes
? Greg will complete CGI's initial proposal and forward the draft to Enron, 
for review, this weekend and on Monday
? The proposal is due Monday PM to CMS
? Presentations to CMS by potential vendors will occur on March 26th-28th.  
We should think about who attends and at what point we might want to use our 
internal contacts to approach the client.  For now we are waiting, based on 
CGI's advice.
? Since the client is in the requirements phase, we should think about how we 
might want to support that process, given our approach to delivering systems 
solutions

Thanks for everyone's support.
Steve