Промышленный лизинг Промышленный лизинг  Методички 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 [ 144 ] 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

contenders for carrying through to due diligence. The preliminary screening forces out undercapitalized, unfocused, or otherwise inappropriate vendors, as well as allows the remaining vendors to be preliminarily ranked. The team should constantly ask the common-sense question: Can you envision a scenario in which we would actually choose and rely on this vendor? The result is a quality list of vendors participating in the marketplace, along with a clear, consistent rationale for the inclusion or discharge of each one.

Occasionally, at the end of a preliminary vendor screening process, no viable vendor or combination of vendors emerges. In these cases, the team should go back through the analysis and look for these common missteps in the process described previously:

Business scope set incorrectly: Too narrow or too broad for a vendor solution to emerge

Scope indistinct: Difficult to assess vendor capabilities due to lack of clarity on business scope, product or service requirements

Not enough vendors identified: Not enough data sources searched to yield proper number of vendors; search of data sources too superficial

Vendor data incorrect or missing: Team did not gather enough vendor data, or vendor data is incorrect leading to vendors screened out improperly

Primary or secondary screening criteria set too tight: Criteria for vendor screen set too tight, forcing out viable vendors

Additional criteria needed: Team adds additional relevant criteria with higher weighting, allowing viable vendors to pass primary and secondary screening

The team should analyze the process for these common mistakes, as well as other holes in the overall analysis. If the team concludes that the analysis has been completed correctly, the marketplace for the scope in question has no vendor participation, and the business needs will have to be filled with internally developed products or services.

Request for Proposal Process Management

An RFP is a time-honored method for choosing vendors in which the company gives a group of vendors the opportunity to show their capabilities by responding to a specific set of business requirements and information requests. RFPs typically request a broad swath of information-product or service data, vendor financial and structure data, customer references, qualifications with similar work, and more.

Requiring interested vendors to respond to a well-thought-out RFP can be a highly effective approach for both gathering additional data without



imposing incremental workload on the team and screening vendors for ability to produce quality work. There are a variety of good reasons to conduct an RFP:

It distributes data gathering effort to multiple vendors instead of an internal team.

It allows vendors to withdraw if the RFP focus indicates they are not a good match.

It introduces an element of natural selection to the process-vendors that cannot manage their way through an RFP process are not likely to be viable long-term partners.

It gives a view of the vendors capability for producing a finished product early on with little risk; if vendors cannot produce quality RFP responses (typos, clarity, answering the questions asked, organization), there may be similar issues with their products or service.

It allows vendors to self-team, working and proposing in concert on areas where a multivendor solution makes sense.

It creates a level playing field for the vendors; all vendors see the same RFP request and provide the same response information; this has the double benefit of encouraging vendors to participate if they perceive a fair selection process and of forcing the internal evaluation team to consider each vendor equally, mitigating any potential biases.

Multiple analyses of the requirements and information in the RFP by highly skilled vendor sales and delivery staff may point out shortcomings or inconsistencies in the previous analysis by the internal team and vendor manager.

Not every vendor selection is a good candidate for a full RFP. The team may elect to not conduct a full RFP for a variety of reasons. In these cases, the team may proceed straight to the vendor investigation and due-diligence process. Some examples include:

The number of vendors identified during the previous screening is small enough to justify proceeding directly to due diligence.

In a sellers market, the RFP may be considered too onerous by target vendors and discourage participation; they will opt to go after easier-to-win business.

The preliminary vendor selection conducted in the previous step unearths enough information to satisfy the selection team.

The final decision needs to be made rapidly, and not enough additional time is available for a full RFP-response-analysis cycle.

The vendor(s) being selected is minor, or the level of investment is minor enough and does not justify the effort of a full RFP.



There is a large separation between first- and second-place vendor, so first-place vendor takes the decision by default.

Creation of a high-quality RFP requires the team to have a clear command of the business scope of services or product requirements. If creating a good RFP is difficult for the team, it is likely that these elements were not clearly defined in the previous task. A good RFP not only reduces the effort for the team but also ensures enthusiastic and full participation by target vendors.

Exhibit 16.8 provides an overview of the RFP process. The steps are described in the following subsections.

Create Request for Proposal. A well-constructed RFP contains two primary sections: an overview of the company, which gives the responding vendor information on the company and required service or product to help in its response, and a section for vendors to provide a detailed response to specific questions on company, capabilities, functionality, and other relevant considerations. The first section may include the following company information:

History of company

Size of business: three- to five-year revenue history, number of employees

Geographies covered: headquarters, branch offices, plant locations Service line overview

Key points that differentiate the company business operations Single point-of-contact e-mail address for all questions and responses


Conduct

bidders

Answering

conference

l>~

questions

(ongoing)

appropriate

Evaluate

Select

RFP and

finalists

follow up

for due

questions

diligence

Period should be 2-8 weeks

Exhibit 16.8 RFP Process Overview



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 [ 144 ] 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187