Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
RFP Processes and Rationale
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

RFP Processes and Rationale

1,061

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,061
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. Warehouse Management RFP <ul><li>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: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why an RFP was conducted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What methods / approach were followed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How the RFP was managed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What due diligence was taken </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What the outcomes were </li></ul></ul>
  • 3. Why RFP? <ul><li>An RFP was performed because: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projected development budget was large; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Timeframe of application development was expected to last several months; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The tool’s impact on the organization would be large; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large variation in products in the warehousing space; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highly detailed requirements were necessary; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Logistics procurement policies on competitive bidding mandated RFP-format; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Followed IFRC guidelines on contracting for large-scale projects </li></ul></ul>
  • 4. 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?
  • 5. 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
  • 6. High-Level Overview
  • 7. 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
  • 8. 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 Notification Notified 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
  • 9. 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.
  • 10. 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. Demonstrations Scheduled vendor demonstrations , defined demonstration evaluation sheets, and viewed presentations. Performed post-presentation debrief and determined high performer. Validated. Select Vendor Selected vendor . Notified all other vendors of status. Made plans for the execution of the contract, pending reviews of terms and conditions. Receive Proposals Performed opening ceremony with Logistics and documented what proposals were received and their inventory.
  • 11. RFP Process Detail
  • 12. 1. WHAT: Step Detail <ul><li>Developed Business Case </li></ul><ul><li>Defined stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Birgitte Olsen </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Martin Bush </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hugh Peterken </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sanjiv Jain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carl Reiach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Defined objectives and goals </li></ul><ul><li>Defined Timeline and Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Approved approach </li></ul>Decision to RFP RFP Defined SRS Defined Validate
  • 13. 1. WHAT: Step Detail <ul><li>Met with stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Matrixed Spanish Red Cross resource to team </li></ul><ul><li>Documented system requirements / features </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed document with stakeholders </li></ul>Decision to RFP RFP Defined SRS Defined Validate
  • 14. 1. WHAT: Step Detail <ul><li>Met with stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Defined Request for Proposal wording </li></ul><ul><li>Garnered other necessary support documents </li></ul><ul><li>Legal review and approval </li></ul><ul><li>Decided to allow vendors to respond with both a COTS proposal as well as a bespoke proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Developed RFP “Packs” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Invitation letter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SRS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RFP matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Design Guidelines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IFRC Standard Terms and Conditions </li></ul></ul>Decision to RFP RFP Defined SRS Defined Validate
  • 15. 1. WHAT: Step Detail <ul><li>Met with stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Approved deliverables </li></ul>Decision to RFP RFP Defined SRS Defined Validate
  • 16. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Conducted vendor research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Whitepaper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gartner (Best of Breed, Magic Quadrant) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Past relationships and vendors at the IFRC </li></ul></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification
  • 17. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Solicited peers for recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Spanish Red Cross </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American Red Cross </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other departments (Logistics, Relief, ISD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional relationships </li></ul></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification
  • 18. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Developed comprehensive vendor listing </li></ul><ul><li>Distinguished vendors based on COTS (commercial off the shelf software) or bespoke applications </li></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification
  • 19. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Manhattan Associates </li></ul><ul><li>RedPrairie </li></ul><ul><li>3M / High Jump </li></ul><ul><li>Yantra </li></ul><ul><li>SwissLog </li></ul><ul><li>SSA Global / Provia </li></ul><ul><li>Catalyst International </li></ul><ul><li>Oracle / Peoplesoft </li></ul><ul><li>SAP </li></ul><ul><li>Microsoft / Navision </li></ul><ul><li>The Fritz Institute </li></ul><ul><li>The AidMatrix Foundation </li></ul><ul><li>i2 Technologies </li></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification <ul><li>FUNDESUMA </li></ul><ul><li>Vertica </li></ul><ul><li>Datamatics </li></ul><ul><li>Irislogic / Bluestar </li></ul><ul><li>Satyam </li></ul><ul><li>Eye Street Software </li></ul><ul><li>Gon Software SL </li></ul><ul><li>Accenture </li></ul><ul><li>BearingPoint </li></ul><ul><li>IBM Global Business Services </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated Solutions Group </li></ul><ul><li>Zethcon Solutions </li></ul>
  • 20. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Met with stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Validated vendor listing </li></ul><ul><li>Received approvals to invite vendors to participate in RFP </li></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification
  • 21. 2. Who should we send it to? <ul><li>Invited vendors to participate in RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Established vendor connections </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary phone conversations to establish interest </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed RFP with guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Provided FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document to all vendors to answer questions </li></ul>Vendor Research Vendor List Peer Solicitation Validate Vendor Notification
  • 22. 3. How will we judge? <ul><li>Defined Timeline and Approach for proposal evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Broke evaluations into 3 sections: LOGS, ISD, and Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Determined weighting: (40% LOGS, 30% ISD, 30% Cost) </li></ul>Define Approach Validate Define Criteria
  • 23. 3. How will we judge? <ul><li>Each individual unit defined evaluation criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Scoring was based on responses to RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Approved and validated evaluation criteria within units </li></ul><ul><li>Defined Cost model calculations and assumptions </li></ul>Define Approach Validate Define Criteria
  • 24. 3. How will we judge? <ul><li>Met with all evaluation stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed approach and validated evaluation mechanisms </li></ul>Define Approach Validate Define Criteria
  • 25. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Received electronic (on CD), sealed bids </li></ul><ul><li>Several proposals were mistakenly opened, but did not threaten the validity of the RFP according to IFRC legal </li></ul><ul><li>Working with Logistics, all remaining proposals were opened in an Opening Ceremony </li></ul><ul><li>All proposals were inventoried and signed by LOGS and ISD points of contact on August 4, 2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ben Kim, ISD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mikhail Chitashvili, LOGS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geraldine Meichtry, LOGS </li></ul></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 26. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>No Response </li></ul><ul><li>Catalyst International </li></ul><ul><li>IBM Global Business Services </li></ul><ul><li>Yantra </li></ul><ul><li>Oracle / Peoplesoft </li></ul><ul><li>FUNDESUMA </li></ul><ul><li>Declined to Respond </li></ul><ul><li>SwissLog </li></ul><ul><li>SSA Global / Provia </li></ul><ul><li>The Fritz Institute </li></ul><ul><li>i2 Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Accenture </li></ul><ul><li>BearingPoint </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated Solutions Group </li></ul><ul><li>Zethcon Solutions </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals <ul><li>Responded </li></ul><ul><li>RedPrairie </li></ul><ul><li>Manhattan Associates </li></ul><ul><li>3M / High Jump* </li></ul><ul><li>SAP / MTF* </li></ul><ul><li>Microsoft / Exel * </li></ul><ul><li>The AidMatrix Foundation </li></ul><ul><li>Vertica </li></ul><ul><li>Datamatics* </li></ul><ul><li>Irislogic / Bluestar </li></ul><ul><li>Satyam* </li></ul><ul><li>Eye Street SW* </li></ul><ul><li>RB Consultores / Gon Software SL* </li></ul><ul><li>* Mistakenly opened, approval by IFRC Legal to continue </li></ul>
  • 27. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Eliminated vendors not meeting mandatory criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted Quick SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) on proposals to understand high-level positions </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluations on remaining proposals begun </li></ul><ul><li>Martin Bush: LOGS </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjiv Jain / Ben Kim: ISD </li></ul><ul><li>Martin Bush / Ben Kim: Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Emailed vendors to clarify any necessary responses </li></ul><ul><li>Provided ongoing status to all stakeholders as well as vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Created Comparative Bid Analysis documents to compare side-by-side </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 28. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Distributed scores to stakeholders with preliminary recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed all supporting documentation to stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Identified highest scoring vendors and defined short-list </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 29. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Notified high-scoring vendors and invited to demonstration (Group 1) </li></ul><ul><li>Notified non short-listed vendors (notified them as being in Group 2) </li></ul><ul><li>Requested signed Non-Disclosure Agreements from Group 1 vendors in order to release copies of existing IFRC warehousing software for their review </li></ul><ul><li>Developed scoring sheet for vendor demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Developed scenario-based mandatory demonstration criteria for vendors </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 30. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Scheduled back-to-back demonstrations the week of October 17 </li></ul><ul><li>Each presentation is 2.5 hours </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholders from Logistics, Finance, ISD in attendance </li></ul><ul><li>Defined demonstration evaluation / scoring sheet </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 31. 4. Which proposal is the best? <ul><li>Review scores of demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Meet with stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Determine final vendor or if Group 2 should be invited to perform demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Notify winning vendor as well as other vendors of status </li></ul>Execute Evaluation Notify Vendors Validate Scores Demonstrations Select Vendor Receive Proposals
  • 32. Where can I find your templates? <ul><li>All documentation is stored at: </li></ul><ul><li>T:ISDProjectsActiveWarehouse ManagementIFRC WMS RFPRFP Presentation Supporting Documents </li></ul><ul><li>Note: Vendor selection is NOT COMPLETE until the end of October. These documents should not be considered public domain until that point. </li></ul>
  • 33. What is important to remember? <ul><li>RFP was undertaken to allow a methodical, pragmatic approach to a vendor selection; </li></ul><ul><li>Steps were taken to limit risk and liability to the organization (releases, open communication, closely-worded RFP); </li></ul><ul><li>Process conformed with existing models in Logistics; </li></ul><ul><li>Milestones throughout the process were approved by executive stakeholders from multiple departments; </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive documentation allowed process transparency; </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluations provided quantitative measures on proposals; </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrations allowed subjective evaluations on performance, look, and navigation. </li></ul>
  • 34. Why should ISD care? <ul><li>As application complexity grows, the demand for RFPs may increase; </li></ul><ul><li>RFPs are mechanisms to reduce risk in vendor selection – not eliminate it; </li></ul><ul><li>Must clearly define what is needed of desired: garbage in is garbage out </li></ul><ul><li>RFPs allow a repeatable process that expedites traditional vendor selection; </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-departmental cooperation on RFPs rarely give departments the ability to “point the finger” in a problematic project; </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive documentation allows process transparency and knowledge sharing; </li></ul><ul><li>Repeatable processes and training could potentially allow ANY departmental resource to drive vendor selection </li></ul><ul><li>RFPs are not necessary for all projects </li></ul>
  • 35. What’s Next <ul><li>Committee of Contracts meeting and approval </li></ul><ul><li>Execution of contract – quickly! </li></ul><ul><li>Establishment of IFRC project teams, including project manager and departmental points of contact. </li></ul><ul><li>Project kickoff, determination of project manager and champions. </li></ul><ul><li>Development and submission of Statement of Need (SON) to begin ISD Project. </li></ul>
  • 36. What’s Next for ISD <ul><li>Determine when to use RFP processes </li></ul><ul><li>Begin using RFP processes and templates for appropriate projects </li></ul><ul><li>Manage documentation centrally and revisit / update processes as organization changes </li></ul><ul><li>Learn and adopt standard project processes (under construction) </li></ul>
  • 37. Questions? <ul><li>Question / Answer </li></ul><ul><li>Also can contact at: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Benjamin Kim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>+41 22 730 4888 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>after Nov 1: +1 (202) 303 8809 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] , [email_address] </li></ul></ul>

×