You may receive a wide variety of response formats and comments from vendors, despite requesting a particular format of response to your RFP. Scoring these can be complicated, especially if there is no standard format. The ideal solution is to 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, such as, 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 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

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 Then, with the table of RFP Response Categories and associated Scores, you can evaluate the RFP vendor comments and give each response an appropriate score, as in the example below: 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. See RFP Evaluation Template. For more RFI / RFP information, visit: RFI / RFP Sample, Reviewing RFI Responses, RFP Scoring Guidelines, RFI / RFP Evaluation, Rating Criteria for RFP, More Complex RFP Scoring

More Complex RFP Scoring

Scoring scheme for more complex vendor RFP responses

Axia Consulting

© 2020 Axia Consulting Ltd. All rights reserved.
17 New Road Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME5 9RL, United Kingdom Contact Us
RFP Response Categories
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
Example vendor RFP Responses
RFP Response Categories
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. Or 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 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. Or 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. Or a future release, with further discussions required
Future release (with no date – ie just on a wish list)
1
Requirement not met
0
You may receive a wide variety of response formats and comments from vendors, despite requesting a particular format of response to your RFP. Scoring these can be complicated, especially if there is no standard format. The ideal solution is to 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, such as, 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 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

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 Then, with the table of RFP Response Categories and associated Scores, you can evaluate the RFP vendor comments and give each response an appropriate score, as in the example below: 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. See RFP Evaluation Template. For more RFI / RFP information, visit: RFI / RFP Sample, Reviewing RFI Responses, RFP Scoring Guidelines, RFI / RFP Evaluation, Rating Criteria for RFP, More Complex RFP Scoring
More Complex RFP Scoring Scoring scheme for more complex vendor RFP responses
© 2020 Axia Consulting Ltd
All rights reserved. Contact Us
RFP Response Categories
Score
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
Example vendor RFP Responses
RFP Response Cat- egories
Scor e
Requirement exceeded
10
Standard software AA version 1103
The standard software fully meets requirement
9
Standard software AA v1103, via tailoring screen configuration and report configuration
Some modifications are required eg configuring screens
8
Using windows capabilities. Or 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 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. Or 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. Or a future release, with further discussions required
Future release (with no date – ie just on a wish list)
1
Requirement not met
0

Axia Consulting