Home: Resources for Selecting Software
More Complex
RFP Scoring

Quick Links

Resources

RFP guidance

RFP / RFI evaluation

RFP scoring guidelines

Rating criteria for rfp

Evaluating RFP Responses or Vendor Proposals?

Save your time with this quick and easy

RFP Evaluation Template

More Complex RFP Scoring

Scoring scheme for more complex vendor RFP responses and comments

Despite requesting a particular format of response to your RFP, you may well receive a wide variety of responses and comments from vendors. Scoring these can be complicated, especially if there is no standard format. The ideal solution would be to specify and receive standard format responses. The next best - is to create a scoring scheme that categorises the responses / comments into various categories that are useful to you. Then convert the vendor’s RFP responses into categories and associate each with a numerical score. The example below illustrates the potential solution.

 

The problem - a typically wide variety of vendor RFP response comments.

The functionality requirement X is achieved by:

  • Standard software AA version 1103
  • Standard software AA v1103, via tailoring screen configuration and report configuration
  • Using windows capabilities
  • Using / integrating with software BB
  • This could be achieved subject to a full specification, however, it is believed that CC tools may be utilised / interfaced to fulfil the requirement
  • Standard software AA version 1104, when released
  • Standard software AA will be offering this feature in a future release
  • A future release, further discussions are required
  • Standard software AA could offer this functionality, subject to a full specification, if customer is prepared to part sponsor this
  • Possible modifications required, pending further discussions
  • Modifications required subject to a full specification

 

The solution – is to either separately categorise the responses/comments and then score these, or combine the categorisation and scoring eg by creating a table of RFP Response Categories and Associated Scores (with categories / scores that are useful to you), and then convert the vendor RFP responses/comments into a score.

On previous pages we have suggested 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 are more complicated, you could use a wider scoring range say from 0 to 10 (with 10 the best, 0 the worst)

 

Example table of RFP Response Categories and Associated Scores

RFP Response Categories

Associated Scores

Requirement exceeded

10

The standard software fully meets the requirement ie straight out of the box

9

Some modifications are required eg configuring screens

8

Meets requirements using a third party software (that is already integrated with the standard software)

7

Considerable modification required eg interface development

6

Meets requirements using a third party software (where an interface development is needed)

5

Future release (with a known release date or version number)

4

Source code will need to change (that the vendor will undertake)

3

Chargeable bespoke development (that you would have to pay for)

2

Future release (with no date – ie just on a wish list)

1

Requirement not met

0

Then, with the table of RFP Response Categories and Associated Scores, you can evaluate the RFP vendor comments and give each response/comment an appropriate score.

Example vendor RFP responses/comments

RFP Response Categories

Associated Scores

 

Requirement exceeded

10

Standard software AA version 1103

The standard software fully meets the requirement ie straight out of the box

9

Standard software AA v1103, via tailoring screen configuration and report configuration

Some modifications are required eg configuring screens

8

Using windows capabilities

Using/integrating with software BB

Meets requirements using a third party software (that is already integrated with the standard software)

7

 

Considerable modification required eg interface development

6

This could be achieved subject to a full specification, however, it is believed that CC tools may be utilised / interfaced to fulfil the requirement

Meets requirements using a third party software (where an interface development is needed)

5

Standard software AA version 1104, when released

Future release (with a known release date or version number)

4

Possible modifications required, pending further discussions

Modifications required subject to a full specification

Source code will need to change (that the vendor will undertake)

3

Standard software AA could offer this functionality, subject to a full specification, if customer is prepared to part sponsor this

Chargeable bespoke development (that you would have to pay for)

2

Standard software AA will be offering this feature in a future release

A future release, further discussions required

Future release (with no date – ie just on a wish list)

1

 

Requirement not met

0

Once you have your scores, you can multiply these by your ‘requirement weighting’ to calculate points (or weighted scores) for how each of your requirements has been met by the software vendor.

 

For more RFP information visit: RFP / RFI evaluation / RFP scoring guidelines / Rating criteria for rfp / RFP Evaluation Template

Home | Privacy Policy | Site Map

17 New Road Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME4 6BA, United Kingdom   info@axia-consulting.co.uk

Copyright © 2017 Axia Consulting Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Checker - Do not copy content from this page.