Jack - a vehicle purchase will usually fall under either a category strategy and/or procurement process, leaving the decision to strategy and process rather than preference. If you are purchasing one vehicle, that acquisition might bring the transaction under the threshold of strategy/process guidelines, but that is rare. Please consider the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the acquisition, rather than simply the purchase price, as vehicles represent significant opportunities for overall cost savings.
• Forsythe and Long Engineering, Inc.
Usually evaluations are broken into two separate categories which are technical and commercial. There are usually team members that are specialized in certain areas that will review the Proposal for different requirements. (ie. the contract specialist may review the commercial portion of the proposal such as pricing and breakdowns. The Engineering team may review the technical side to ensure the Contractor has quoted all items within spec and has also included all items.) Are your RFP's for Lump Sum, T&M or Unit prices?
It is hard to share a general answer for this topic. It depends very much of the type of work, country and sector the customer is operating in. In the Netherlands "Best Value Procurement" is growing at Public companies. In many books are the techniques and processes described. For software development the understanding of function point analysis might help to understand the scoring of building software. And further are most evaluation processes described in the RFP.
I agree with your two respondents. My experience, and we consider this to be a best practice, is to do the technical evaluation first, separate from the commercial. This allows an unbiased review without people thinking about price or the price of their favorite vendor. Technical normally involves components like: HSE/Safety, technical capability, capacity, experience, past performance/recommendations, plant load, and possibly the personnel and their individual experience offered up to the project.
If you use the technical to create a weighting then the commercial evaluation can be weighted by the technical to determine the winner. This means a less technically efficient company would need to have a substantially better price than a more technically efficient one.
Examples of this kind of weighting I believe are listed in the IACCM's large Contracts reference manual.
• Forsythe and Long Engineering, Inc.
I also agree with the responses that have been provided in lieu of my initial response. I think it is a good practice to conduct the technical evaluation before the commercial. However, some of the technical evaluation can be conducted during the prequalification process. This may include capacity, safety, insurance, personnel, etc. If the contractor passes this stage and submits a proposal then the award may only be subject to technical requirements such as submitted equipment manufacturers, product types, and very project specific requirements. The commercial evaluation will remain the same.
In terms of the 8 different payment schemes I was specifically referring to what we call 'payment curves' (see attached graphic) as opposed to payment regimes such as cost+ (time and material), fixed price, cost + fixed fee, etc. In this light these are grouped into 5 main families with a couple of variations inside each. These are as follows:
- 'all or none' payment curves
- Linear payment curves
- Non-linear payment curves
- Alternative payment such as demerit point and visual payment curves
- Matrix payment curves
The intent of this discussion is to simply highlight that the choice of payment curve, similar to the choice of performance measure and level, can have a significant impact on the success (or otherwise) of the overall performance management framework. My blog (www.performancebasedcontracting.com) has 3 posts specifically on this topic including the graphics.
I hope this helps and answers your questions. However, please let me know if you have any further questions.
Whilst it's the way that a lot more suppliers seem to be going, if you think about this in with your procurement hat on - and that is what's going to happen at the end of 3-5 years - it's tough to see you doing anything but just rolling this over (and over and over again) as someone else has all of your data on their server.
At the risk of being awfully contentious, my own experience is that in a lot of circumstances, there's little consideration of whole of life costs - especially with that thinking about what's to happen in 3-5 years. Right now, many of these purchases done right now are flying under the radar of procurement teams because they're below procurement limits or just being called operational expenditure within business delegated authorities.
That said, one of the benefits that I've also seen is that upgrades happen automatically on the server of the host without the business having to create teams to do this, especially where there was a major upgrade - which were previously a big financial impact on many businesses.