I N S I D E

SWPP Annual Conference

SWPP Board of Advisors

Scheduling Challenges
for the Support Desk

Lessons from the Last Recession

Three Strategies for Optimal Agent Adherence

Managing by the Numbers

Ask the Workforce Wizard

WFM Fall Survey

WFM Survey Results

Industry News

Events Calendar

Our Sponsors

Join SWPP

swpplogo

Visit our Website at
www.swpp.org

Managing by the Numbers
 
 

Using Selection Criteria in Vendor Bid Analysis

Choosing among competitive bids is a challenging process. It can often involve a committee representing a variety of disciplines and agendas. A fair and impartial analysis that results in a consensus decision is the goal, but competing priorities and hidden biases often frustrates it. One way to achieve the desired results is to use a methodology based on selection criteria that are agreed to prior to receiving the first bid.

In this method, the selection criteria are divided into two major categories – the “musts” and the “wants.” If any vendor proposal does not meet the requirements for even one “must” criterion, it must be eliminated. These kinds of criteria are the minimum requirements such as capacity to serve the current size and some minimal growth.

The “want” criteria are all of the other things that you’d like to have with the system/service under consideration. They might include features and functions, cost-effectiveness, and vendor support capabilities. Some of these will be “yes/no” decisions, but most will be achieved to some degree. An example might be reliability of a system. It isn’t a question of whether it is reliable or not, but the degree to which it can be depended upon to work every day. Cost of one system can be compared to cost of another to select one that is more cost-effective than another.

Each “want” criterion must be given a relative weight to display its importance compared to all other “want” items. The total of all want criteria must be 100 points, or 100% of the decision. For technology acquisitions it is common to divide the “want” criteria into three major categories – technology, cost, and vendor capabilities. An example of a criteria list is provided at the end of the article.

This list (probably without the relative weights) can be provided to the vendors in the RFP once the committee and management have approved it. It will help to focus the bids on the relevant issues and minimize the marketing language in the bids.

Once the bids are received, the committee must review the bids for compliance with the “must” criteria. Any failures will eliminate that vendor. Once that is completed, the remaining vendors will be scored against each other on the “want” criteria. For example, if redundancy is the criteria and it has a weight of 10 points (as in the sample below), then the committee considers all vendors and selects the one that is judged to be the best of all bidders. That bidder is given a score of 10. All other vendors are judged against the best vendor and given a relative score. It is OK to have tied scores and even zero scores. Once all have been scored, then the score is multiplied times the weight that was given to that criteria. So the winning vendor in redundancy would receive a weighted score of 10 X 10 or 100 points.

Another vendor given a score of 6 would receive 6 X 10 or 60 points.

This process is repeated for each criteria item until all have been scored. The weighted scores are added to obtain the final score for each vendor. The one with the most points is the winner and generally represents the best-balanced choice for the organization.

For more information about the application of this process, please refer to The New Rational Manager by Kepner and Tregoe. I have personally used this process in hundreds of client projects over the years and have found it capable of bringing a diverse and contentious committee to consensus. It results in a decision that can be defended, even in the most politically-charged environments.

Sample Selection Criteria

Note: The selection criteria below is meant to evaluate the vendors only after they have met the list of “must” requirements. Failure to meet any one of the requirements will eliminate a vendor from competition regardless of all other considerations.

I. FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 40
(This section evaluates the system and technologies.)

WEIGHT

A. REDUNDANCY/RELIABILITY/LIFE CYCLE OFTECHNOLOGY PROPOSED

10

B. FLEXIBILITY FOR INTERCONNECTION WITH PERIPHERAL SYSTEMS AND PBXs INSTALLED AT OTHER LOCATIONS (NON-CALL CENTER)

1

C. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND REPORT CAPABILITIES

5

D. SYSTEM EXPANDABILITY/EASE OF MOVES AND CHANGES

1

E. INTEGRATION OF VOICE, DATA, VIDEO, & INTERNET

7

F. FLEXIBILITY FOR NETWORK & VRU INTERFACE

7

G. USER OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1

H. FLEXIBILITY FOR MULTI-SITE VIRTUAL NETWORK

8

II. VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS
(This section evaluates the vendor’s capabilities to get the job done
and be a long-term partner.)


25
A. STRATEGY FOR LONG-RANGE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
5

B. TRAINING SUPPORT

2

C. INSTALLATION CAPABILITIES

3

D. MAINTENANCE CAPABILITIES

7

E. INSTALLED BASE OF COMPARABLE SYSTEMS

6

F. CALL CENTER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EXPERTISE

2
III. SYSTEM COST/REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES
(This section evaluates the costs over the useful life of the system and
any revenue opportunity enhancements available)
35

A. DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW OVER SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE

5

B. CAPABILITY TO MINIMIZE NETWORK COSTS

5

C. CAPABILITY TO MINIMIZE STAFFING COSTS

15

D. CAPABILITY TO MAXIMIZE REVENUE PRODUCTION

10
 
100 TOTAL

Copyright ©2009 Society of Workforce Planning Professionals. All rights reserved.