MODEL RFP
HOME
OVERVIEW
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
ACQUISITION GOALS
ORGANIZING THE ACQUISITION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
INDEX
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
SAMPLE RFP DOCUMENTS
Professional Services
Case Management System
|
|
Produced in association with:
|
Send comments and suggestions to the webmaster.
|
Model RFP Process
Disclaimer
Many of the administrative requirements for a RFP are specified by local rules. Courts should consult with the local purchasing department to learn what local administrative requirements govern issuing a RFP. This document is provided as a general guide for the procurement process, but in no way is this guide definitive.
An RFP is among the best methods for enhancing negotiating leverage with vendors. Although the RFP purchase mechanism is time-consuming, an RFP's many advantages outweigh any disadvantages and delays caused by its preparation. An RFP:4
- Informs vendors that an official contract is pending and encourages them to make their best effort. More rapid and responsive vendor responses result.
- Requires the court to specify what it proposes to purchase. If the requirements analysis has been prepared rigorously, it can be incorporated quite easily into the RFP.
- Alerts vendors that the selection process is competitive. The vendors will be solicitous of the court's needs and positions regarding legal issues and project requirements.
- Forces vendors to respond factually to the identified requirements. Vendors know that if selected, they are contractually bound by their previous representations. (It is not uncommon for a vendor to hedge about capabilities of hardware during the contract negotiation. The hedging can be eliminated quickly and effectively when the vendor is reminded about previous representations in the RFP response.)
Concerns have been raised in recent years that perhaps the RFP process is not the best method for acquiring technology.5 For example, the full and open competition objective that typifies RFP procurements may discourage more-innovative vendors from making their trade secret solutions known to their competition via a publicly disclosed RFP response if no protections are in place. The RFP process also considerably expands the time required to complete the procurement cycle. By the time the system is ultimately installed, it is no longer state of the art.
Kelman argues that the longer procurement cycle is a result of the RFP's over- specified, rule-based procedures. He observes that rules change more slowly than the environment they are meant to control. When government procurements were directed at reasonably fungible items such as paper, pencils, typewriters, and even automobiles, the price of the items and the quality of goods delivered were fairly easy to determine. The implied RFP goals of process integrity, equity, and economy could coexist with complex procurement rules.
Purchasing technology and related professional services, Kelman suggests, requires a different set of rules directed at a different set of RFP goals. In this procurement arena, the court is buying complex, high-risk products and services. The court's procurement rules should be directed not only at achieving the more familiar goals of equity, integrity, and economy but also at achieving excellence in the goods and services it delivers to its constituents. A procurement format that encourages an equilibrium between conflicting competitive goals and excellence in service goals may be one that greatly increases the purchase discretion given to court managers. Increasing purchase discretion heightens the manager's accountability for results. No matter how the RFP is constructed, there should be some sensitivity to developing results-based evaluations. One way to pursue this goal is to request information about vendors' experience with similar projects. The information should include experience with the court issuing the RFP and others. Courts should not sacrifice value for cost when procuring information technology goods or services. A balance between value and cost must be reached that meets the court's needs but does not break the bank. See National Association of State Purchasing Officials, Buying Smart: Blueprint for Action.
Kelman also has noted that government officials are so straitjacketed by mandates for fairness that they can't make smart decisions, let alone fair ones. He points out that excessive regulations that promote competition prohibit procurement managers from considering pertinent information or exercising common sense in awarding contracts. Even an agency's past experiences with a vendor-good or bad-have been excluded as decision-making criteria.6
When courts seek to procure information technology goods and services the cost specified in the proposal should not be the single driving consideration. The project cost should be considered in conjunction with other criteria. The other criteria that a court should consider are items such as product quality, total cost of ownership7, proposed methodology, and vendor performance history.
Despite these many problems, the RFP remains the required procurement tool for technology purchases in most state and local courts. It is important for court and technology project managers to understand the process thoroughly to take advantage of its benefits and to avoid the pitfalls that often accompany large and expensive technology initiatives.
|
|
