RFP Processes and Rationale

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


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


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


Decision to RFP

RFP Defined

SRS Defined

Validate

Met with stakeholders Approved deliverables


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


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


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


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


Vendor Research

Vendor List

Peer Solicitation

Validate

Vendor Notification

Met with stakeholders Validated vendor listing Received approvals to

invite vendors to participate in RFP


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


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)


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


Define Approach

Validate

Define Criteria

Met with all evaluation stakeholders

Reviewed approach and validated evaluation mechanisms


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


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


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


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


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


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


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],

[email protected]