Scoringscheme for more complex vendor RFP responses and comments
Despite requesting a particularformat of response to your RFP, you may well receive a wide variety ofresponses and comments from vendors. Scoring these can be complicated,especially if there is no standard format. The ideal solution would be tospecify and receive standard format responses. The next best - is to create ascoring scheme that categorizes the responses / comments into variouscategories that are useful to you. Then convert the vendor’s RFP responses intocategories and associate eachwith a numerical score. The example below illustrates the potential solution.
The problem - a typically widevariety of vendor RFP response comments.
The functionality requirement Xis achieved by:
· Standard software AA version 1103
· Standard software AA v1103, via tailoring screenconfiguration and report configuration
· Using windows capabilities
· Using / integrating with software BB
· This could be achieved subject to a fullspecification, however, it is believed that CC tools may be utilized /interfaced to fulfill the requirement
· Standard software AA version 1104, when released
· Standard software AA will be offering thisfeature in a future release
· A future release, further discussions arerequired
· Standard software AA could offer thisfunctionality, subject to a full specification, if customer is prepared to partsponsor this
· Possible modifications required, pending furtherdiscussions
· Modifications required subject to a fullspecification
The solution – is to either separately categorize theresponses/comments and then score these, or combine the categorization andscoring eg by creating a table of RFP Response Categories and Associated Scores(with categories / scores that are useful to you), and then convert the vendorRFP responses/comments into a score.
On previous pages we havesuggested a simple scoring range from 0 to 3 eg 0 = not met, 1 = partly met, 2= fully met, 3 = exceeded expectations. But as the responses / comments aremore complicated, you could use a wider scoring range say from 0 to 10 (with 10the best, 0 the worst)