I am often asked to review RFPs completed by contractors to make sure they have fully answered all the criteria questions properly to achieve a top score.
As far as the municipal viewpoint is concerned, the goals and objectives of any RFP must be clearly expressed and a fair description provided on the method of evaluation.
In practice, it is often difficult to provide an exact explanation of the evaluation method that will be employed, for the simple reason that the final formula that is most suitable can only be determined once the differences in the proposals received are known.
The reason is that bidders tend to bid to the evaluation criteria set out in the RFP in order to create the impression that they satisfy those criteria whether they do so or not.
If experience in a specific area of professional practice is given a weighting of 10 per cent, then all bids are likely to be presented in such a way that drawing distinctions becomes difficult or artificial.
If bidder “A” has 10 years experience, while bidder “B” has nine, the distinction may be meaningless.
On the other hand, there may be actual differences between the two bids in relation to other required information that was less emphasized.
For instance, it may become clear from their respective proposals that “B” has done exactly the same type of work for another public sector customer, while “A” — although equally experienced in the same broad field of expertise — has not carried out identical work before.
It is the random discovery of such differentiating considerations that constitutes one of the shortcomings of the competitive contract award process.
A rational buyer in any other context would certainly take B’s prior identical work into account, because that work should expedite completion of the work for the municipality.
However, in a competitive process, the municipality must anticipate the possibility of such differentiating considerations and then specify them as being relevant to the contract in advance. Since the possible differentiating considerations are nearly infinite, this is simply an impractical requirement.
Once again, we see how preoccupation with fairness to suppliers sacrifices the interests of the municipality as a customer.
More generally, the RFP documents need to be drafted in a way that allows a supplier to identify readily and clearly the municipality’s needs.
It needs to require information to be presented in a simple form, that reduces the tendency towards platitudes, cliche and rhetorical devices that serve no other purpose then to impress and bamboozle the ignorant.
To be workable the RFP must be aimed at the provision of carefully selected, critical information, which must be provided in as objective and standardized a format as possible.
The testing methods that will be used to determine whether the system meets the acceptance criteria should be clearly understood.
The goal of testing is to gain acceptance of functions, functionality and performance within a defined time frame.
Despite these differences, much of the content of an RFP will be similar to that of a tender. As with a simple tender, all RFP documentation packages distributed to prospective proponents should contain a section setting out administrative requirements and rules governing the procurement process.
This section will tell the bidders how and when to respond. The rules should also set out a schedule that lists the significant dates in the procurement process and informs prospective proponents of the various deadlines. The administrative section should also describe the required format for the proposal.
In view of the more complex evaluation process, it is vital that all information related to a bid be provided on a basis which allows comparison of the information offered by each supplier.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at swbauld@purchasingci.com.
Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed