APMP’s June 2022 and February 2023 statements present two distinct sets of allegations against Baachu. The June 2022 allegations accuse Baachu of promoting itself as a cheaper alternative to APMP and establishing its own fee-based proposal management community that could be seen as a competitor to APMP. In contrast, the February 2023 allegations are centered around copyright and intellectual property infringement
It is important to note that the allegations made in both statements have not been fully substantiated by APMP.
Additionally, the recent introduction of copyright and IP infringement allegations in APMP’s statement released on February 12th, 2023 contradicts their original reasons for revoking Baachu’s ATO status. The initial reasons given in June 2022 were based on Baachu promoting its own fee-based proposal management community as a cheaper alternative to APMP’s offerings, as well as Baachu setting up its own fee-based proposal management community. The introduction of copyright and IP infringement allegations raises concerns about the validity and accuracy of APMP’s allegations against Baachu.
However, as of February 16, 2023, there is no evidence provided by APMP to support their claim that Baachu sent out advertising to APMP members and the bid and proposal management community urging members to consider Baachu’s certifications as a cheaper alternative to APMP’s.
Additionally, APMP’s claim that Baachu’s fee-based proposal management community acts as a competitor or alternative to APMP is not supported by facts. Baachu has been transparent about its business model and its paid learning academy with a community component from the beginning.
The evidence presented in these statements seems to suggest a pattern of behavior that is at odds with APMP’s expectations for its Approved Training Organizations (ATOs).
However, some of the allegations, such as the claim that Baachu set up a proposal management community as a direct competitor to APMP, are open to interpretation and may require more context to fully understand their significance.
These two sets of allegations raise questions about APMP’s credibility and the fairness of the revocation process.
The process followed by APMP in revoking Baachu’s ATO status has also been called into question, particularly with regards to the fairness of the hearing and the equal treatment of other ATOs.
The questions raised by Baachu in response to the revocation show that there is a need for transparency and clear communication between APMP and its ATO partners.
Overall, it is important for APMP to provide clear and verifiable evidence to support their claims against Baachu. Transparency and fairness in any process of revocation of ATO status are critical to maintaining the integrity and reputation of the bid and proposal management industry.
An objective assessment of the latest situation follows.
Discrepancy between APMP’s Reasons for Revocation:
• There is a discrepancy between the reasons provided by APMP in June 2022 for revoking Baachu’s ATO status and the allegations in APMP’s statement released on February 12th, 2023.
• The introduction of copyright claims in 11 Feb statement, after they had not been raised in 7 June Legal Letter or 21 Nov Executive Committee Hearing
• APMP’s decision to bring up issues from 2019 and 2020 to revoke Baachu’s ATO status in their February 11, 2023 statement
Lack of Discrepancy between APMP’s Reasons for Revocation:
• APMP’s reasons for revoking Baachu’s ATO status in June 2022 did not mention any copyright infringement, while their February 2023 statement included these allegations.
• APMP also introduced issues from 2019 and 2020 to their February 2023 statement, which were not mentioned in the revocation letter from June 2022.
• APMP has not provided any verifiable evidence to support these new allegations.
Lack of Evidence to Support APMP’s Cheaper Alternative and Paid Community Claims:
• APMP has made claims that Baachu marketed its fee-based proposal management community as a cheaper alternative to APMP’s offerings, but has not provided any verifiable evidence to support these claims.
• Similarly, APMP has claimed that Baachu’s fee-based proposal management community acts as a competitor/alternative to APMP, but has not provided any verifiable evidence to support this claim.
Lack of Evidence for Copyright Infringement:
• APMP has made allegations of copyright infringement against Baachu, but has failed to produce any verifiable evidence to support these claims.
Lack of Evidence for Baachu’s Marketing:
• APMP has made claims that Baachu marketed its paid community to APMP members, but has failed to provide any verifiable evidence to support these claims.
Lack of Communication and Due Process:
• APMP’s lack of communication and transparency has hindered the ability to find a mutually beneficial solution.
• The November 2022 Professional Ethics Committee hearing was not conducted by independent jurors, as it should have been.
• Baachu was not given the opportunity to review and challenge the facts presented in APMP’s staff report, while APMP had the opportunity to review Baachu’s materials before the hearing.
Baachu’s Response Raises Doubts About APMP’s Claims:
• Baachu has responded to each of APMP’s allegations in detail with facts.
• Baachu has been transparent about its business model from the beginning, which was recognized and acknowledged in Baachu APMP ATO Press Release when they became an ATO in 2018/19.
Considering these allegations, it is imperative that APMP and Baachu engage in constructive dialogue to address the concerns raised on both sides. The bid and proposal management industry, as well as individuals in emerging economies who rely on low-cost training opportunities, stand to benefit from a resolution that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders.
As APMP moves forward under a new Board, it is important that fair and transparent governance procedures are followed to ensure that similar disputes can be resolved in a way that is equitable and just for all parties involved.