|
RFP -- A Mission Not Impossible
By:
Janet E. Jones
Clerk
Kansas House of Representatives
Volume 6, Number 1 Summer 2000
© Journal of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries
 ASLCS Home Page
RFP -- A Mission Not Impossible
By: Janet E. Jones
Clerk
Kansas House of Representatives
"Clerk or Secretary: Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the proposed plan to implement a new system for the legislature. You will need to find and document the needs, justify these needs, find a method of solving the problem, and secure someone to provide a solution. This tape will NOT destruct and will replay every day for the coming months."
Someday you may come to work to find such an assignment awaiting. It sounds like a daunting task - and it is - but it is one you can learn to manage.
RFPs are commonly used because the in-house staff does not have the time or expertise to completely explore all products, vendors, etc., and to complete an entire project. By issuing an RFP, you get a variety of solutions proposed to accomplish the stated goals and also a means of implementing the project. When the proposals are offered, each must be evaluated to determine if each point in the RFP has been addressed and in the manner prescribed. When a vendor is selected, the negotiation of the contract begins. Often this is done by the attorneys in the agency. The RFP also is used to monitor each step of the project as it progresses.
There are many steps between the assignment being made and the final accomplishment of the project. A committee of committed staff must be assigned to work together to reach an understanding, determine the requirements and needs of the project, and represent the entire working community that will be involved in the new project.
The work currently being done needs to be documented and the manner in which it is accomplished determined. All work products which will be a part of the RFP need to be identified. Also, new features and outcomes which are to be implemented must be described. You should ask the following questions before you get started: What is needed to improve the work of the department or agency? What is the reasoning behind these needs (poor communication, old equipment, updating of processes, etc.)? Interviews of those affected will be necessary. Staff workers in the ranks will give you much more detailed information about the problems they encounter than department heads, so it is necessary to include them in the interviews. This phase becomes the most important in the end and may take from one to six months depending on the amount of detail involved and the time that the committee has to devote to the project. A new system is not of value if it does not improve efficiency, save time, improve value, or satisfy the original demand for improvement.
When the study is completed, the purpose of the RFP is written as the first section. This defines the project and includes the name of the contact person and the number of copies of the proposals the bidder is to submit. A timetable for accomplishment of the stages of the project should also be included. Sometimes disclaimers are added relating to liability or other issues.
The requirements section follows. This must be specific to the requirements needed. It may be a complex document if it includes several components, such as computer equipment or software and application packages. It is important to document the volume of work currently being produced and the expected growth of work or business.
The third section of the RFP explains how the evaluation of the proposals is to be done to select the best or most appropriate supplier and product. The requirement for references from past and present employers or customers is established.
Finally the RFP details how the proposals are to be documented. It is important that all proposals contain the same information in basically the same format to make equitable comparisons when examining them during the selection process.
Collect names and addresses of potential bidders from committee members, other staff, NCSL, advertisements, and cards you have brought home from meetings. Spread the word of your prospects as much as possible. When the RFP is completed, you may also want to post it on your state website as well as with NCSL. Be sure to follow all state rules on competitive bids, such as publishing in the state paper.
When the RFPs are distributed to potential bidders, a complete list of names, addresses, contact persons, etc. must be maintained. The bidders are not known to one another, or others outside the selection committee, but if one bidder requests additional information, a time extension, or other special treatment, all vendors must be informed of the same information or offered the same treatment.
It is important to allow sufficient time for the vendors to study the proposal and work up their ideas into a document which answers all the criteria established by the RFP. Usually at least a month is necessary for this to occur. A very complex RFP may require even more time.
The committee chairperson should establish a calendar to schedule all events, such as release date of the RFP, response date, calls to references, committee meetings to discuss the proposals, interview dates, selection date, notification to unsuccessful bidders, and date for contract negotiation.
When the proposals are received, it is imperative that security is stressed to those persons who will be reviewing them. Proposals should be kept in a secure place by each reviewer and discussions of the proposals should be done in private only with other reviewers.
The evaluation criteria must be based on the RFP itself. The choice should be based on equally significant criteria. The committee should not be swayed by features not really needed.
In the interest of fairness and to ensure integrity of the procurement process, the committee should eliminate any vendor from consideration that does not meet all the required elements, regardless of liking other parts of the presented materials and/or presentation.
To make subjective evaluation easier, the rater should assign numerical values to each element being rated. This allows for an even comparison. The entire committee will not compare numerical values on each item, as individuals tend to rate differently; but when comparing values on each proposal done by one rater, the values should be consistent.
When two or more vendors are at the top of the majority of the raters' lists, it is again time to rate each item of the proposal, one against the other (i.e., 1 for 'Best,' 2 for 'Nearly all objectives met' and 3 for 'Not quite up to standards of others').
Overall price considerations are often the most straightforward, though not the most important, areas to evaluate. A sampling of questions to rate the proposals might be:
Did the respondent follow the RFP format and adequately complete the proposal?
If the vendor is a firm, consider its financial status; number of years it has been in business; number of personnel; number of similar installations; experience in legislative marketplace; availability of personnel to work on project.
If the vendor is an individual, what previous experience does he/she offer to the project?
Did the respondent establish a realistic time line for project work?
Did the respondent present a proposal within the applicable laws, procedures, rules, and regulations of the Legislature?
Did the respondent incorporate prior studies of process or previously completed development into the proposal or propose new processes and/or equipment?
Did the vendor suggest that the system proposed could be expanded to meet future growth requirements?
Did the respondent understand the high security needs and address them?
Did the respondent show understanding and regard for the Project Management Methodology?
What type of training, how much, for whom, and at what cost was included in the vendor's bid?
Did the respondent clearly define the project and provide clear and concise plans and cost estimates? Were these documented to your satisfaction?
Did the respondent provide innovative ideas or suggestions to make the project management services include items we may have not covered?
Did the respondent indicate any reasons for a need to adjust the scheduled implementation time?
Did the cost projections seem realistic and relatively in line with the same services bid by other vendors?
Did the respondent inspire your confidence in the manner in which the proposal was prepared and presented?
Does the vendor have additional capabilities which might be required in the future for other projects?
Service is difficult to evaluate, and what is learned from the references should carry significant weight in this area. Experience in projects of similar type also is significant, but care must be taken to ensure that the vendor is not planning to reuse a previous project which does not match this project.
Other aspects to be considered are company data, background, and reputation. The vendor's financial soundness, its overall reputation, its knowledge of the legislative process, and the level of respect within the legislative communities are fairly straightforward. The personality of the vendor, which is harder to quantify, also may enter into the decision-making process.
Generally, it is acceptable and desirable to call a vendor to ask questions regarding any answer on the proposal that is unclear. This should be done by the contact person, on behalf of the committee, in his or her position as the contact on the RFP. This could possibly be done as a telephone conference call with all committee members in attendance.
It is easier to request individual members of the selection committee to call the listed references. To be fair and consistent, each reference should be asked the same questions. References should be for projects similar in type and size to the project. Questions should be probing enough to elicit meaningful responses, i.e.,
Did the project come in on time?
Were the components of the project done to specification?
What was the worst problem ever encountered, how was it discovered, and how did the vendor respond?
Were reports on the project done in the time frame outlined and were they complete?
Was the project done with the financial resources outlined in the contract?
Was the representative available and responsive during the project?
Was there adequate staff to keep up with the required work?
Would you award another contract to this vendor?
Allow time for the person you are interviewing to give spontaneous comments because sometimes that reveals information that is meaningful.
Make extensive notes on your conversations with the references. This will be important for the report to the committee.
At the meeting of the RFP committee, there will no doubt be extensive discussion. Questions will arise. Telephone conference calls are one way to handle this. When all questions have been resolved, the committee should select two or three bidders to come for personal interviews. Other bidders should be notified of their elimination, thanked for their response, and encouraged to respond to future RFPs.
The interview process should be scheduled to allow sufficient time for all committee members to have their questions answered and for the vendors to completely explain their proposals. It would not be unusual to allow a half-day for each vendor to present a complex proposal. It is always better to become aware of any deviation from the RFP at this point rather than later, although alternative methods may be offered and if, when explained, they meet the required criteria, may be acceptable.
Committee discussion needs to be conducted within a short period of time following the interview sessions so that all committee members have their impressions clearly in mind and also to be fair to those vendors who appeared before the committee. Quite often, all committee members independently arrive at the same conclusion on the selection. If there is not common agreement, perhaps no one really met the expected criteria and there may be the need for further interviews or an agreement to not accept any of the proposals.
You may find out, as I did, now is not the time to say, "It's too bad I learned all this, never to use it again," because if a proposal is not selected, you will have the opportunity to start all over! Good luck!
For more information about ASLCS, write or call:
Sally Kittredge
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303/364-7700
FAX: 303/863-8003
E-mail: sally.kittredge@ncsl.org
|
