Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Wiki Home
Collapse Expand Close

Members
Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.

RFP for Candidate Technology and Tool Components Deliverable Template

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

Share/Save/Bookmark
Jump to: navigation, search
Under construction.png
This article is currently Under Construction. It is undergoing major changes as it is in the early stages of development. Users should help contribute to this article to get it to the point where is ready for a Peer Review.
This deliverable template is used to describe a sample of the MIKE2.0 Methodology (typically at a task level). More templates are now being added to MIKE2.0 as this has been a frequently requested aspect of the methodology. Contributors are strongly encouraged to assist in this effort.
Deliverable templates are illustrative as opposed to fully representative. Please help add examples to this template that are representative of the proposed output.

In the RFP for Candidate Technology and Tool Components task, an RFP can be issued out to vendors for product selection. The RFP process will typically involve a formal written response, presentations and product demonstration. This task requires much work on the front-end to identify only those vendors that have credible tools and technologies.

The output of this task is a succinct requirement listing for the areas noted above. These requirement listings are then used as the screening mechanism for the next task.

Examples

Listed below is an example RFP deliverable:

Example for an RFP for Vendor tools

RFP Process

  • Document was originally intended for release as Request for Information; was submitted as a Request for Proposal instead
  • Requested responses from 5 external vendor consortia, as well as the team responsible for the MS-developed internal solution
  • Extensive set of evaluation criteria – 4 categories, 16 sub-categories, over 200 specific questions/sub-questions
  • Weights applied to Category and Sub-Category levels (scoring model supports weighting down to question level)
  • Intent is to evaluate responses and reduce field to a shortlist of external vendors for further evaluation prior to selection
  • RFP scores are a key input to the decision process, but not the sole basis for selection

RFP Evaluation Approach and Mechanics

  • Sub-Teams assigned to evaluate appropriate sub-sets of questions: CTO, IT Engineering, Compliance, Litigation
  • Facilitation of evaluation sessions and recorded grades, supporting comments, and follow-up items
  • CTO and IT Eng. provided primary assessment; Participants (Compliance, Litigation) added business-side perspective
  • Team decided to defer to the 2nd round certain questions: In-depth Financial Viability, Pricing, Pricing Model, In-depth References

Scoring Approach and Model

  • Grade scoring scale and spectrum
  • Rollup mechanisms
  • Uniform weights for sub-questions
  • Average sub-question roll-up score with parent question grade
  • For N/A (no grade) situations assign average score of vendors with grades

Proposed Vendor Standings Overall
Proposed Vendor Standings Overall

Wiki Contributors
Collapse Expand Close