The document outlines a methodology for vendor selection, emphasizing an efficient and repeatable process that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative scoring to evaluate vendors. It details the importance of fairness in decision-making and provides a scoring system to assess vendors based on their functionalities and requirements. Additionally, it presents a comparative analysis of three vendors, including their strengths, weaknesses, and cost implications, to assist in making an informed decision.

1. Vendor Selection Michael Shullich, CISSP, PMP

2. Defined Methodology Identification of best vendor/product Efficient and repeatable process Quantitative & qualitative scoring Compliance Address potential vendor challenges Sample Presentation Template to use

3. www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf CHAPTER 4. FAIRNESS 4.1 Description of Fairness Fairness is our duty to make decisions and act impartially and objectively. Our conduct must be free from competing self interest, prejudice, and favoritism. 4.3 Fairness: Mandatory Standards As practitioners in the global project management community, we require the following of ourselves and our fellow practitioners: Conflict of Interest Situations

5. 1 3 5 7 9 12 14 16

6. 4 = Must Have Without this requirement the system will not be considered for evaluation. 3 = Very Important It would be extremely difficult to function without this feature. 2 = Important This feature should be included. Can function without this feature but it will have a negative affect on performance. 1 = Desirable Although this feature is beneficial, its absence will not significantly degrade the system but its presence will improve efficiency.

9. Evaluation Score Description Exceptional 1.00 Exceeds basic needs and provides significant additional useful value and potential Meets Requirements Well 0.75 The system compares well with competitors, meets all essential needs and gives all that’s needed Meets Minimal Requirements Only 0.50 System does not compare well to best performers in this category, but still does enough to be useful Meets Partial Requirements 0.25 The system does not meet all necessary requirements in this area, but does contribute some partial value Does Not Meet Requirements 0.00 The system does not meet any of the basic requirements at all

11. Company Vendor A <logo> Vendor B <logo> Vendor C <logo> Product Product-A Product-B Product-C Employees 1,025 6,000 960 Location UK Los Angeles, Ca San Jose, CA Technology Window Servers Windows, Unix Cloud Experience Founded 1980 Revenue $300M Founded 1981 Revenue $400 M Founded 1998 Revenue $200M Potential 3 – Medium 4 – High 4 – High Customers 1,000 Customers 2,000 Customers 8,000 customers Pros Mature product Comprehensive solution Mature product Low initial Cost Good fit out of the box Cons Overly Microsoft centric Implementation High initial cost Implementation Company Not Profitable

12. Max Vendor-A Vendor-B Vendor-C Vendor Profile 23.00 16.50 20.75 15.25 Core Functionality 29.00 15.75 17.25 18.75 Extended Functionality 6.00 3.00 3.75 3.75 Regulatory 6.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 Technical 15.00 9.00 11.25 12.00 Usability 21.00 12.75 14.25 14.25 Overall Score 61.50 71.75 68.50 Vendor Profile : Global reach, stability, innovative, reputation, capabilities, resources Core Functionality : <list items evaluated> Extended functionality : <list items evaluated> Regulatory : <list items evaluated> Technical : <list items evaluated> Usability : <list items evaluated>

13. Vendor-A Vendor-B Vendor-C One Time Core Licenses $50 $50 $35 Implementation & Training $50 $50 $35 Reoccurring Annual Maintenance $25 $15 $17 First Year Total $125 $115 $70 Five Year Total $245 $235 $140 Five Year Avg. / yr $49 $47 $28 Vendor-A not discounted Totals do not include sales tax Includes Price increase 5% on maintenance Does not include 3 rd party software Does not include any additional staffing

14. Cost vs. Functionality (sample) Estimated 1 st Year Cost Percentage of Requirements Met 40 70 100 $150k $0k $50k $100 A C B $200K Vendor C C B Vendor B A Vendor A