|
||
|
||
|
||
|
This snapshot is taken from our new 400-page reference text, The Request For Proposal Handbook (Third Edition). This book focuses on best RFP practices that will help you be successful. Chapter 8 of The Request For Proposal Handbook (Third Edition) discusses the nine building blocks of the evaluation process.
Hear what the President of NASPO says about this book . . . “Michael Asner's book removes a lot of the RFP process mystery. It is one of very few RFP books that address the negotiation process. I refer to Mr. Asner's book often and it is recommended reading for public procurement officers.”
In reviewing a large number of RFPs, we identified nine different components of the process, such as reviewing a proposal for compliance with mandatory requirements, or interviewing the suppliers. We refer to each of these components as a building block:
DEVELOPING A SHORT LIST
After an evaluation score has been determined for each proposal, this step is used to reduce the number of proposals to be evaluated in subsequent steps. Consider the following illustrative example. Eight proposals were evaluated and the following scores were assigned: 82, 80, 78, 72, 65, 63, 50, 48. We now wish to develop a short list. Let's first divide the scores into groups. A group consists of proposals with similar scores. The first group could be 82, 80, 78. There is some question as to which group the proposal scoring 72 should be in. It is always easier to justify keeping a proposal in the competition than disqualifying it. Since 72 is mid-way between 78 and 65, let's put the proposal with 72 in the first group. The next two groups are easier: one being 65 and 63; the other, 50 and 48. If we want to keep lots of proposals in the competition, we could eliminate only the lowest group: 50 and 48. If we want fewer proposals, we could eliminate the middle group as well: 65 and 63. It is neither fair nor defensible to eliminate a proposal that scored better than one that has been kept in. For example, we cannot drop the proposal with the score of 72 if we keep the one with the score of 65. If the proposal with the score of 72 was clearly inferior to the proposal with the score of 65, then our evaluation process was flawed. The proposal with the score of 65 is in fifth place and, most likely, there is little chance that it will emerge as the winner. If it becomes necessary to disqualify this proposal, we have to find some other way of doing it. In some jurisdictions, each major criterion has a lowest acceptable score that must be exceeded to remain in the competition. (See Upset Levels.) In some jurisdictions, the Evaluators are not strictly bound by the point scores. The Project Manager has the discretionary power to declare whether a one or two point difference in scores represents a significant difference in quality of the proposed solutions. This short-listing process produces a reduced number of proposals to be evaluated further. The entire 400-page book focuses on how to create effective, low-risk RFPs. You will learn about best practices that will help you be successful.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Institute
Home | Order | SOW Training CD | Demystified CD | Six-Pack CD | Licenses | Biographies | Evaluation CD Michael Asner Consulting
Home | Order | RFP Report | Products | Contact | About Michael Asner Fairness Officer
Home | Fairness Articles | Fairness Scandals | RFP's/RFQ's | Fairness Consultants | Ethics | Elected Officials Guide
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
