rfp processes and rationale
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Warehouse Management System: A Review of RFP Methods and Processes
& Geneva Tourism Slideshow
Benjamin Kim, IT Officer
Warehouse Management RFP The purpose of this
presentation is to provide a clear description of the processes and rationale behind the 2006 Warehouse Management system Request for Proposal. It aims to cover: Why an RFP was
conducted What methods /
approach were followed How the RFP was
managed What due diligence was
taken What the outcomes
were
Why RFP?
An RFP was performed because: Projected development budget was large; Timeframe of application development was expected to
last several months; The tool’s impact on the organization would be large; Large variation in products in the warehousing space; Highly detailed requirements were necessary; Logistics procurement policies on competitive bidding
mandated RFP-format; Followed IFRC guidelines on contracting for large-scale
projects
What method was followed?In general, the approach that was followed was:
1. WHAT
3. HOW
2. WHO
4. WHICH
What are we asking for?
Who should we sent it to?
How will we judge?
Which proposal is the best?
What method was followed?What was the schedule?
1. WHAT
3. HOW
2. WHO
4. WHICH
May 15, 2006: RFP business case complete
May 30, 2006: RFP approach complete
June 6, 2006: Vendor identification complete
June 25, 2006: RFP documentation complete
June 30, 2006: RFP distributed to vendors
July 28, 2006: Responses due
August 4, 2006: Opening Ceremony
August 7, 2006: Evaluation Matrix complete
August 11, 2006: Scoring begins
September 21, 2006: Vendor finalists selected
October 17, 2006: Vendor Demos begin
October 31, 2006: Vendor selected
High-Level Overview
1. What are we asking for?
Decision to RFP
RFP Defined
SRS Defined
Validate
Determined that RFP was in the organization’s best interests to determine a product that would best meet our needs. Articulated a plan and overall controls around the RFP.
Working with resources from ISD, Logistics, and the Spanish Red Cross, developed a comprehensive requirements specification that defined functionality and expected system behavior.
Defined a request for proposal that included the detailed functional, organizational, technical, and cost RFP questions, requirements specification, IFRC terms and conditions, and web design guidelines
Reviewed the RFP with stakeholders from Finance, Legal, Logistics, Information Systems, and Marketing/Communications
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Conducted research and analysis to determine appropriate vendors. Involved Gartner analysis, whitepaper research, and Internet research.
Solicited feedback from colleagues and peers throughout the IFRC and ARC for vendor recommendations. Compiled a listing of recommended vendors.
Finalized complete list, combining both recommended vendors as well as “best of breed” vendors based on independent research.
Validated the vendor listing with representatives from Logistics, Information Systems, and Legal
Vendor NotificationNotified vendors of impending RFP. Invited their participation and made initial points of contact. Distributed RFP with clear start and end dates. Provided FAQ to answer ongoing questions to all vendors
3. How will we judge?
Define Approach
Validate
Define Criteria
Defined approach for the evaluation of proposals. Evaluations of proposals would follow a 3-prong approach: logistics evaluation, technical (ISD) evaluation, and cost evaluation. Each would culminate in a evaluation form of its own.
Evaluation forms and the evaluation criteria were defined. Logistics, ISD, and Cost evaluations would give point totals based on responses provided by the vendors in the proposals.
Validated approach and evaluation criteria with Logistics, ISD, and Legal.
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Executed the proposal evaluations, based on the defined approach evaluation criteria, and scoring. Determined point totals and published final scores internally.
Validated the scores with Logistics and ISD and determined vendor short list, based on scores.
Notified short-listed vendors of their status. Invited short-listed vendors to perform on-site demonstration. Notified non short-listed vendors of their status in “Group 2”. Gave 1 month of preparation time for demonstration and provided MS Access prototype.
DemonstrationsScheduled vendor demonstrations, defined demonstration evaluation sheets, and viewed presentations. Performed post-presentation debrief and determined high performer. Validated.
Select VendorSelected vendor. Notified all other vendors of status. Made plans for the execution of the contract, pending reviews of terms and conditions.
Receive ProposalsPerformed opening ceremony with Logistics and documented what proposals were received and their inventory.
RFP Process Detail
1. WHAT: Step Detail
Decision to RFP
RFP Defined
SRS Defined
Validate
Developed Business Case Defined stakeholders:
Birgitte Olsen Martin Bush Hugh Peterken Sanjiv Jain Carl Reiach
Defined objectives and goals Defined Timeline and Approach Approved approach
1. WHAT: Step Detail
Decision to RFP
RFP Defined
SRS Defined
Validate
Met with stakeholders Matrixed Spanish Red
Cross resource to team Documented system
requirements / features Reviewed document
with stakeholders
1. WHAT: Step Detail
Decision to RFP
RFP Defined
SRS Defined
Validate
Met with stakeholders Defined Request for Proposal wording Garnered other necessary support
documents Legal review and approval Decided to allow vendors to respond with
both a COTS proposal as well as a bespoke proposal
Developed RFP “Packs” Invitation letter SRS RFP matrix Web Design Guidelines IFRC Standard Terms and Conditions
1. WHAT: Step Detail
Decision to RFP
RFP Defined
SRS Defined
Validate
Met with stakeholders Approved deliverables
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Conducted vendor research Internet Whitepaper Gartner (Best of Breed,
Magic Quadrant) Past relationships and
vendors at the IFRC
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Solicited peers for recommendations: Spanish Red Cross American Red Cross Other departments
(Logistics, Relief, ISD) Professional
relationships
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Developed comprehensive vendor listing
Distinguished vendors based on COTS (commercial off the shelf software) or bespoke applications
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Manhattan Associates
RedPrairie 3M / High Jump Yantra SwissLog SSA Global /
Provia Catalyst
International Oracle / Peoplesoft SAP Microsoft / Navision The Fritz Institute The AidMatrix
Foundation i2 Technologies
FUNDESUMA Vertica Datamatics Irislogic / Bluestar Satyam Eye Street
Software Gon Software SL Accenture BearingPoint IBM Global
Business Services Integrated
Solutions Group Zethcon Solutions
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Met with stakeholders Validated vendor listing Received approvals to
invite vendors to participate in RFP
2. Who should we send it to?
Vendor Research
Vendor List
Peer Solicitation
Validate
Vendor Notification
Invited vendors to participate in RFP
Established vendor connections Preliminary phone conversations
to establish interest Distributed RFP with guidelines Provided FAQ (Frequently
Asked Questions) document to all vendors to answer questions
3. How will we judge?
Define Approach
Validate
Define Criteria
Defined Timeline and Approach for proposal evaluation
Broke evaluations into 3 sections: LOGS, ISD, and Cost
Determined weighting: (40% LOGS, 30% ISD, 30% Cost)
3. How will we judge?
Define Approach
Validate
Define Criteria
Each individual unit defined evaluation criteria
Scoring was based on responses to RFP
Approved and validated evaluation criteria within units
Defined Cost model calculations and assumptions
3. How will we judge?
Define Approach
Validate
Define Criteria
Met with all evaluation stakeholders
Reviewed approach and validated evaluation mechanisms
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals
Received electronic (on CD), sealed bids
Several proposals were mistakenly opened, but did not threaten the validity of the RFP according to IFRC legal
Working with Logistics, all remaining proposals were opened in an Opening Ceremony
All proposals were inventoried and signed by LOGS and ISD points of contact on August 4, 2006 Ben Kim, ISD Mikhail Chitashvili, LOGS Geraldine Meichtry, LOGS
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive ProposalsNo Response Catalyst International IBM Global Business
Services Yantra Oracle / Peoplesoft FUNDESUMA
Declined to Respond SwissLog SSA Global / Provia The Fritz Institute i2 Technologies Accenture BearingPoint Integrated Solutions
Group Zethcon Solutions
Responded RedPrairie Manhattan
Associates 3M / High Jump* SAP / MTF* Microsoft / Exel * The AidMatrix
Foundation Vertica Datamatics* Irislogic / Bluestar Satyam* Eye Street SW* RB Consultores /
Gon Software SL*
* Mistakenly opened, approval by IFRC Legal to continue
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals
Eliminated vendors not meeting mandatory criteria
Conducted Quick SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) on proposals to understand high-level positions
Evaluations on remaining proposals begun Martin Bush: LOGS Sanjiv Jain / Ben Kim: ISD Martin Bush / Ben Kim: Cost Emailed vendors to clarify any necessary
responses Provided ongoing status to all stakeholders
as well as vendors Created Comparative Bid Analysis
documents to compare side-by-side
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals Distributed scores to
stakeholders with preliminary recommendations
Distributed all supporting documentation to stakeholders
Identified highest scoring vendors and defined short-list
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals
Notified high-scoring vendors and invited to demonstration (Group 1)
Notified non short-listed vendors (notified them as being in Group 2)
Requested signed Non-Disclosure Agreements from Group 1 vendors in order to release copies of existing IFRC warehousing software for their review
Developed scoring sheet for vendor demonstrations
Developed scenario-based mandatory demonstration criteria for vendors
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals Scheduled back-to-back
demonstrations the week of October 17
Each presentation is 2.5 hours
Stakeholders from Logistics, Finance, ISD in attendance
Defined demonstration evaluation / scoring sheet
4. Which proposal is the best?
Execute Evaluation
Notify Vendors
Validate Scores
Demonstrations
Select Vendor
Receive Proposals Review scores of
demonstrations Meet with stakeholders Determine final vendor or if
Group 2 should be invited to perform demonstrations
Notify winning vendor as well as other vendors of status
Where can I find your templates?
All documentation is stored at:
T:\ISD\Projects\Active\Warehouse Management\IFRC WMS RFP\RFP Presentation Supporting Documents
Note: Vendor selection is NOT COMPLETE until the end of October. These documents should not be considered public domain until that point.
What is important to remember?
RFP was undertaken to allow a methodical, pragmatic approach to a vendor selection;
Steps were taken to limit risk and liability to the organization (releases, open communication, closely-worded RFP);
Process conformed with existing models in Logistics;
Milestones throughout the process were approved by executive stakeholders from multiple departments;
Comprehensive documentation allowed process transparency;
Evaluations provided quantitative measures on proposals;
Demonstrations allowed subjective evaluations on performance, look, and navigation.
Why should ISD care? As application complexity grows, the
demand for RFPs may increase; RFPs are mechanisms to reduce risk in
vendor selection – not eliminate it; Must clearly define what is needed of
desired: garbage in is garbage out RFPs allow a repeatable process that
expedites traditional vendor selection; Cross-departmental cooperation on
RFPs rarely give departments the ability to “point the finger” in a problematic project;
Comprehensive documentation allows process transparency and knowledge sharing;
Repeatable processes and training could potentially allow ANY departmental resource to drive vendor selection
RFPs are not necessary for all projects
What’s Next Committee of Contracts
meeting and approval Execution of contract –
quickly! Establishment of IFRC
project teams, including project manager and departmental points of contact.
Project kickoff, determination of project manager and champions.
Development and submission of Statement of Need (SON) to begin ISD Project.
What’s Next for ISD
Determine when to use RFP processes
Begin using RFP processes and templates for appropriate projects
Manage documentation centrally and revisit / update processes as organization changes
Learn and adopt standard project processes (under construction)
Questions?
Question / Answer Also can contact at:
Benjamin Kim +41 22 730 4888 after Nov 1: +1 (202)
303 8809 [email protected],