 |
 |
Parks & Rec Business
| Purposely Blind By Ron Ciancutti Some time ago my staff and I were weighing the differences between sending out a “bid package” versus a “request for proposal” (RFP). The RFP seemed to have several advantages, especially the ability to negotiate with some “wiggle room.” The “bid package” was more suited to a fixed price for a specific item and was bonded in light of that price (e.g., one pickup truck = $17,500). The “Bid Package” For example, a firm bid is released for advertising services. Public relations firms send in rate sheets for commercial time and print ads, and take a best guess as to the costs. Since the bid parameters require the firm to be specific, it bids the higher end of any estimate so that the company doesn’t get stuck paying out-of-pocket for something it promised the client would be less expensive. If costs overrun, which they oftentimes do on those types of contracts, the firm is required to gain the Board’s approval for any costs beyond the original estimate. This is an arduous task for little gain. The “RFP Proposal” Now consider the same item under the RFP process. The best proposal is set, and at the negotiating table potential costs are identified. The proposer suggests a “range of costs” for commercial time. Perhaps a “maximum ceiling” is established and honored to resolve fluctuating costs; under the flexibility of the RFP, that can be accomplished. But the RFP process kept hitting a snag. Although “wiggle room” existed regarding details, the evaluation team was too attentive to cost, seeing if the least expensive package would suffice. Often it was not, and then the challenge became legitimizing the rejection of a lower offer due to lack of quality. Then the staff and I had an idea. What if we structured the RFP so that we operated “blindly” regarding price? What if the “short list” of potential vendors was arrived upon before anyone knew the cost? Under such a system, the merits of the proposal would be set before the cost details were considered. In the end, I devised a 2-envelope system whereby the vendor submits a proposal with complete details spelled out in envelope #1 and the cost detailed in envelope #2. The decision-making group could then weigh the best proposals based on the merits of what they offered (opening only envelope #1). Then, when the prices were revealed, evaluators could see how much “bang” they were really getting for their “buck” (opening envelope #2). Shown below is a mock proposal using the system described. I used “advertising for the zoo” as the item out for proposal (as mentioned above). Introduction/Goal The Metroparks is accepting proposals from advertising agencies to increase awareness of the Zoo and generate additional attendance for summer and fall of 2007. Budget $30,000 includes design and production of all advertising for the remainder of 2007. Metroparks is a (non-profit) Political Subdivision of the State of Ohio (Ohio Revised Code Section 1545.01 Et. Sequence. It is a Public Park Operation. Contact Ron Ciancutti, Purchasing Manager: 216-635-3230 / rdc@clevelandmetroparks.com. Format Metroparks is not liable for any cost incurred by prospective consultants prior to signing a contract. To be considered for a complete proposal, each quoting party must submit all information requested in this section. Failure to provide information by the date specified for the receipt of proposals may result in the proposal being disqualified for further review. The contents of this RFP and the proposal may become contractual obligations, pending negotiations. The Metroparks staff will screen the initial submissions and then invite selected quoting parties to interview. Responses to the proposals will be based on a two-step selection process. The first step ranks the proposals according to professional qualifications and experience with similar projects (envelope #1). A short list will be assembled to proceed to step two, which considers fee quotations (envelope #2) and an interview. The committee will recommend its choice to the Executive Director-Secretary, who will review the recommendation and add any modifications. The updated version will be brought before the Board of Park Commissioners, who will make the final selection. The final selection will be based on a point system: Step One Professional Qualifications1 - 25 points (Envelope #1) Actual Proposal/Experience With Similar Projects 1 - 25 points (Envelope #1) Short List Assembled Step Two Proposal With Cost Estimates1 - 25 points (Envelope #2) Interview 1 - 25 points Maximum Point Value100 points The fee quotation must be submitted with each proposal, in a separate sealed envelope (#2), clearly marked "Fee Quotation.” In no event shall modifications or alterations to proposals be upgraded through post-selection negotiation to an amount in excess of the original quotation. Proposers are therefore instructed to quote accordingly. The final selection will be the result of a negotiated process. All information submitted as proposals, including fee quotations, are considered public information available at the conclusion of the selection process. The quoting party shall, under no circumstances, be considered an agent or employee of Metroparks, and shall have no right or authority to, in any manner, obligate Metroparks to any other person or company. Metroparks shall not assume responsibility for the payment of any personal property taxes for any materials not owned by Metroparks, nor shall Metroparks pay any insurance premiums for any coverage of any property not owned by Metroparks. No conditions shall alter this statement. Envelope #1 Part I--Service A) A brief description of the agency as presented to prospective clients. B) A list of the agency’s accounts, including services provided for each. C) The quoter’s proposed method of operation and servicing of the Zoo. D) Any information, believed by the quoter, to contribute to the client’s review of the agency’s capabilities. Feel free to provide any thoughts and/or materials on general direction for Zoo creativity in 2007. E) A current list of active clients, including location and product/service with general description of work. F) The “added value” potential the agency can provide in terms of schedules, programs and/or promotions to enhance the paid advertising in each market. G) Any and all specific examples of promotional programs that can be provided by the agency. The agency’s ability to leverage Zoo dollars with private-sector financing and/or media providers for cooperative promotional programs should be outlined here. Envelope #2 Part II--Fee A fully inclusive fee, noting any and all exceptions and conditions. ************************************* Objectives The selected vendor shall: Design and produce creative materials to include television, radio, print and /or outdoors, as needed in 2007, including advertising for the Zoo’s summer exhibits. Negotiate, secure, and supervise any “added value” to include schedules, programs and/or promotions that augment and enhance the paid advertising schedule in each market. Design, negotiate, and implement an overall plan to leverage Zoo dollars with private-sector financing and/or media providers to cooperative promotional and/or advertising programs. BUDGET: $30,000. Proposal Evaluation A Metroparks committee will review the proposals. It will make a recommendation for select candidates to be interviewed. Recommended candidate(s)/proposal(s) will be submitted to the Executive Director and Board of Park Commissioners for approval. Proposals submitted to Metroparks will be evaluated utilizing the following criteria: A) The consultant's experience and past record of performance, including the ability to schedule well, to maintain good working relationships, and to exhibit flexibility in project(s); B) The consultant's approach to accomplishing the work, including the understanding of the scope of work and proposed format for completing the work; C) The consultant's project cost. Metroparks reserves the right to negotiate the fee proposal during the interview/selection process. General Information A) Metroparks is not liable for any cost incurred by a prospective consultant(s) prior to the signing of a contract. B) Failure to provide complete information by the date specified for receipt of proposals may result in the proposal being disqualified for further review. C) The contents of the RFP and the proposal may become contractual obligations, pending negotiation. D) All information submitted through the proposal process, including a fee quotation, is considered public information available at the conclusion of the selection process. E) The quoting consultant shall not be considered an agent or employee of Metroparks, and shall have no right or authority to, in any manner, obligate Metroparks to any other person or company. F) Metroparks reserves the right to award the total proposal, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, and to waive any informality or technical defects if, in the Board’s judgment, the best interest of Metroparks will be so served. In determination of awards, the qualifications of the proposal submitter, the conformity with specifications of services to be supplied, and the delivery of terms will be considered. G) Selection Time Schedule Receipt of Request for Proposals --date inserted Anticipated Award of Consultant Contract(s) --date inserted H) Proposal(s) must be submitted, as specified, to the administrative offices at or before 2:00 p.m. on the date required. This is a firm quotation, not subject to cancellation or withdrawal for a period of 60 days from date of receipt. The staff and I have had some good fortune with this method, and I have yet to run into a vendor that found it unfair. The due diligence following the bid is definitely necessary (follow up with every proposal provider) so that all options are entertained, but I heartily recommend giving it a try. It has served my company well and leveled the playing field in many formerly “slanted” situations. |
All contents contained within this website may not be reproduced or disseminated without expressed written permission from the Publisher.