The AARP has a little egg on its face, and USA Triathlon has its feelings hurt, and all for understandable reasons. But first, some history.

The AARP decided to do something special for its members (Americans 50 and older). USA Triathlon was one of fourteen sporting organizations that got a request for proposal (RFP) a year-and-some ago. The organization wanted a nationwide series of sporting events in which its members could participate, and triathlon won out. While not quite a street luger, a triathlete is an archetype denoting youth, energy, and intrepid behavior. Plus, triathlons are fun. Good for triathlon, good upscaler for AARP's image. Perfect marriage.

The AARP budgeted something close to a million dollars of its own money to put on a series of seven events this year, and in order to execute the AARP series USA Triathlon sent out its own RFP. It chose Dannon Duathlon Series race promoter Bill Burke to execute the operational part, including race-directing the entire series.

The AARP's 2001 races are over, and everybody's happy. Now comes year-two, when the series is expected to grow to perhaps fourteen events in as many cities.

The AARP just sent out another RFP, but this time USAT was cut out as the middle-man. The RFP went directly to triathlon event promoters. A source inside USA Triathlon says its organization feels a bit stung, because it's gotten excised from the process with no prior notice. It seems the AARP has decided to go directly to event promoters––I use the plural form loosely––and not have USAT involved, except as perhaps a sanctioning body.

One assumes the RFP was designed to ferret out the race organization best able to put on the classiest, safest, most robust and successful race series, and for the least cost.

Or perhaps not.

Whether or not intended, this RFP was not written to cast a wider net. Rather than generating competitive bids, it limits the number of organizers who would be able to respond. It contains parameters that only one race organizer can meet. Here is the first half of Item 3 of the RFP (bad grammar and all):

"CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE: Experience with direct management of no less than 14 organized swim-bike-runs and/or run-bike-runs within one calendar year, in a minimum of ten states across the country, involving no less than 150 registrants in each site is required. Services of a subcontractor are not permitted for more than 5% for work conducted under this contract."

There is one man on the planet that can jump these hoops, and that is this year's series promoter Burke. The RFP sets impossibly high standards. Who has put on a series of 14 events in 10 states? Graham Fraser need not apply. Neither should Dave McGillivray, Tom Cooney, or any number of proven organizers.

Perhaps one man who could come close to fulfilling the requirements is Jim Curl, founder of the original U.S. Triathlon Series, and operations man for the latter iteration of the USTS' 12-race national series. In fact, Curl and Jan Caille––owner and director of Chicagoland's most popular events, including Mrs. T's triathlon––submitted a bid together to USAT to operate this year's AARP series. It came down, so I understand, to a coin flip between Curl/Caille and Burke. Burke cost a little less than Curl/Caille.

Conspicuously missing from the RFP guest list for next year were both Curl and Caille. Neither got the RFP. Furthmermore, the RFP was faxed to prospective respondents last night, with instructions that an intent to submit a proposal must be received in AARP's office by Friday.

One very real possibility is that whomever set up the parameters and the mailing list for this RFP has no intention of engaging in a competitive bidding process for next year's races. In that case one must ask the question, why even go through a sham bidding process? If the AARP wants Burke, why not just select him for next year? If the reason is that the AARP mandates competive bids––if that's the AARP's standard operating procedure––then its own mandates have been circumvented, and its own membership (or at least its leadership) ought to demand better. Furthermore, triathlon's race promoters ought not to be busied with working on a competitive bid if the choice for contractor has already been made.

Finally, it doesn't serve either triathlon or the AARP to limit the field of prospective contractors. Burke will submit a better bid if he has real competitors. The AARP will be assured its choice of contractor is the best if it really holds an open bidding process. It ought not be asking for race promoters who've put on races with 150 contestants. It ought to strive for the same sort of success achieved by Danskin. Those fine races might've started with 150, but Danskin ended up with races that contained fields with ten times that amount of competitors (and, using a local-contractor model, something AARP will not accept for its series).

I'll give the AARP the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume it did not intend to limit the field of respondents to one. If this is so, I expect it might send out one additional page to its 25-page RFP, amending "Item 3." It also, of course, ought to reestablish a relationship with USA Triathlon, if only to gain access to a more comprehensive list of prospective bidders.