Managing the RFP Process
An RFP is a highly structured document that specifies minimally acceptable functional, technical, and contractual requirements, as well as the evaluation criteria that will govern the contract award. Potential vendors are supplied with copies of the RFP and are requested to submit proposals by a specified date. Usually, proposals that do not conform to the RFP's format are rejected. After a vendor has submitted a proposal, the response cannot be altered or modified before the proposals are opened. As a generalization, a contract is awarded for the lowest-priced proposal that is responsive to the requirements of the RFP.
The RFP should be communicated to as many prospective respondents as practical, several methods are available such as mail, e-mail, or web site. Courts should develop bidder lists for all their technical services. Courts are encouraged to check with their purchasing divisions for a complete list of vendors and to incorporate those vendors into mailing lists. They should inquire whether the State or county register or website where all RFPs are officially published is available for public-at-large notification. They also should contact the National Center for State Courts for its data on court technology vendors, NCSC Court Technology Vendors List. The pending purchase should be advertised in both local and regional newspapers and, if the purchase is large enough, in some national publications, like Commerce Business Daily, Computerworld, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, etc.
The Internet has significantly changed how many businesses conduct business and the courts should be no exception. Using the Internet courts can reduce some of the costs associated with issuing an RFP, such as postage and printing. Additionally, using the Internet can reduce the delay in communications, such as vendor questions and court answers. Courts should use the Internet as a tool for all stages of the RFP process, from announcing the RFP to announcing the selected vendor. Courts can use the Internet to announce/publicize and publish RFPs. There are several approaches courts can use to issue/publicize an RFP, such as using an outside purchasing clearinghouse web site (such as SEARCH IT Acquisition Database, BidNet, or fedmarket.com), a local jurisdiction, such as state, province, territory, county, parish, or city, procurement web site (such as State of North Carolina Interactive Purchasing System, British Columbia Purchasing Commission, or Maricopa County, AZ), or develop a web page in house (such as Circuit and Superior Courts of Marion County, IN). Following announcement and issuance of the RFP the court will need to manage vendor questions, clarifications of the RFP language, and other issues. It is a good idea for the court to have, at minimum, a basic web page at their web site dedicated to providing information about the RFP as the process progresses. The court's web page should include appropriate contact information and downloadable documents of the RFP, vendor questions and court answers, and clarifications and modifications to the RFP. Using the Internet courts can realize many advantages in the RFP process.
Receiving and accounting for each RFP response is usually managed by the local purchasing agency. Each response must be time stamped when received and secured in an orderly fashion. Response tabulation forms should be prepared listing the item bid and bidder name. Any response received after the deadline should not be opened. Response openings should be done in public and begin precisely at the time designated in the RFP.
The RFP should contain the evaluation and selection criteria that will be used in the procurement. The criteria should be written in sufficient detail to preclude any misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Any specific criterion that will influence the selection must appear in the RFP. See Selection Procedure. The RFP should specify the composition of the evaluation committee such as MIS staff or court administration. Cost calculations should be included for such items as equipment, software, communications, utilities, site preparation, program conversion file conversion, training, and continued operation of the system during its anticipated life span.
All questions from bidders should be answered in writing and made available to all bidders. Oral answers to questions should be avoided. All questions should be received in enough time before the submission of responses to permit answers to be formulated and printed. Bidders should direct, in writing, any questions concerning specifications and conditions to the court no later than twenty working days before the responses are opened, courts should consider extending this time frame for more complex procurements. This is usually done in a public meeting to which all bidders are invited. However, courts can use e-mail, fax, or a form on the court's RFP web page to receive vendor questions. Courts will want to answer any questions as quickly and completely as possible. In the RFP courts should specify when answers will be provided, such as 5 working days after vendor questions are due. The answers to vendor questions should be provided to all vendors. There are many ways this notification can be accomplished. The simplest is to post all vendor questions and the corresponding answers on the court's RFP web page. Other ways the court can communicate this information include mail, fax, and e-mail. See Questions and Clarifications.
Generally, awards should be made to the vendor who is most compliant with all of the RFP's specifications, terms, and conditions. Tom Little points out that the vendor response must be reviewed carefully and thoroughly. A firm that honestly responds by qualifying a response should not be punished for so doing when another company simply answers yes whenever the imagination can be stretched far enough. For example, an RFP requires a specific report and one vendor replies with a qualified yes, stating that a report writer is required to do the job. The second vendor may simply indicate yes, without mentioning that their product also requires the report writer.8 This is one of the reasons for having a highly qualified, diverse team of experts to review RFP responses.
Cost may or may not be the single most important criterion for final vendor selection. Purchase price never should be considered alone; comparisons should consider things such as product quality, vendor performance record, vendor financial condition, and total costs over the life cycle of the hardware and software. An excellent matrix of technical and price scoring of proposals has been offered by Gilbert Held.9
|
