https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources & Events
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources/Events
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers/eBooks
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
  • Magazine
acc.com

Public Works & Utilities


RFP 101

RFP 101

Imagine soliciting legal services on price alone or contracting with an architectural firm to design a high-rise building without considering the firm's
  • Written by Keri Stocks
  • 1st August 2001

Imagine soliciting legal services on price alone or contracting with an architectural firm to design a high-rise building without considering the firm’s qualifications. Issuing bids and awarding public contracts based on the lowest price is not always the best way to begin complex projects. Considering price alone could create additional expenses and risks that local governments could avoid simply by using a different procurement method.

A request for proposal (RFP) is a competitive procurement process that allows cities and counties to consider factors other than price, such as qualifications, experience, innovations, creativity, value-added services and project approach. To be effective, it must clearly explain the variables to be addressed in the proposal and how the proposal will be evaluated.

Elements of an RFP

The goal of an RFP is to solicit comparable proposals from several companies. If an RFP is unclear, few companies will submit proposals or all of the proposals will contain vastly different information. Effective RFPs generally consist of eight sections.

  • Project overview

    The first section of an RFP describes the government agency, the history of the project and the reason for issuing the RFP. The overview indicates the purpose of the project, what the completed project will be and when the work will be due.

  • Proposal submittal instructions

    The RFP should include information about how to submit proposals. Proposers need to know items such as the number of copies to submit, the required format, the protocol for questions about the RFP and the deadline (date and time) for submitting proposals.

  • Terms and conditions

    The third section of an RFP includes the government agency’s contractual requirements. The requirements define the agency’s expectations for working with private companies and the relationship between the project participants. Generally, government agencies have contractual requirements that are included in all solicitations. The section may include information such as governing law, limitation of liability, remedies and indemnification.

    In addition to those contractual requirements, local governments may include project-specific contract provisions. For example, RFPs for long-term service contracts should include a clause that describes how price increases will be handled.

    Ideally, all contractual provisions are non-negotiable. However, if a city or county will allow negotiations on certain clauses, it should identify them in the RFP. For example, the RFP might include a negotiable clause defining ownership of work. If a vendor will use a proprietary business model to complete a portion of the project, it might propose that only the final reports may be owned and used by the government agency. Vendors should be instructed to include all suggested language for negotiated clauses in their proposals.

  • Mandatory requirements

    The RFP has to clearly define the work the vendor will be required to provide; where and when the work will occur; and the extent of the work. Those items, sometimes called deliverables, must be measurable, and the RFP must identify the minimum acceptable limits of each requirement. For example, if a city or county needs a technician to respond quickly to photocopier maintenance requests, its RFP might state, “Proposer must have a local office within a 30-mile radius of the city’s main office.” While the distance from the government office to a contractor’s office would be measurable, it would not guarantee that the technician would respond quickly. A better requirement would state, “Proposer must provide evidence of the ability to respond to service calls within two hours of initial call.”

    Detail is the hallmark of a well-written mandatory requirement. For example, the statement “The scanning system must be able to capture and edit high resolution for output to a laser image setter for all documents” is vague. The requirement would be clearer if it stated, “The scanning system must capture and edit high resolution (up to 1,200 dots per inch) for output to a laser image setter and must accommodate image areas up to 11 inches by 17 inches. Proposer shall include any published literature verifying the proposed system meets this requirement.” Mandatory requirements that are not well written and well planned may result in an unacceptable project, cancellation of the RFP and/or legal problems.

  • Scorable mandatory requirements

    In addition to providing evidence that they meet the mandatory requirements, vendors should submit information to demonstrate their ability to complete a project. References, qualifications and experience are examples of scorable mandatory requirements, each of which has defined point values assigned to it.

    For example, a government agency could require that companies have a minimum number of years’ experience providing the service identified in the RFP. However, if the agency would like to give additional weight to a company with more experience, the scorable mandatory requirement might state, “Up to XX points will be awarded to a proposer who has experience that exceeds the required XX years.”

  • Desirables

    In RFPs, local governments can request features, services or products that exceed the mandatory requirements. Desirables have defined point values assigned based on their value to the project. Vendors are not required to provide responses to desirables, but, if they can, they will earn extra points in the evaluation process.

    For the evaluation committee to fairly assign points, the scoring process should be clear in the RFP. For example, a well-written value system might explain, “Up to XX points will be awarded if the proposer demonstrates that the proposed system supports more than 250 active users.”

  • Pricing

    The RFP needs to define how pricing information should be submitted. Providing a pricing form will ensure that companies provide their cost information uniformly. Conversely, if all companies submit different pricing structures, the evaluation committee will have difficulty comparing costs. For example, if a city or county is soliciting a monthly service, it might want the proposals to provide a monthly price that only reflects the services indicated in the mandatory requirements.

    Vendors should use a separate form to state pricing for desirables. If a city or county is looking for a vendor to provide computer maintenance services Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., a company might quote one price. If 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week service is a desirable item, a company might quote another price. With the mandatory and desirable prices separated on different forms, the evaluation committee can easily compare costs.

    Like the scorable mandatories and desirables, the pricing section is rated using a point system. Usually, the proposal with the lowest cost receives the maximum number of points. All other proposals receive a percentage of the points based on how their costs compare to the lowest priced proposal.

    Pricing proposals should be submitted separately from the mandatory and desirable sections. That will ensure that the evaluation committee is unbiased when judging those sections.

  • Evaluation

    Finally, RFPs should identify the criteria the local government will use to determine which of the proposals will best meet its needs. The city or county must state the factors relevant to its selection of a company and then weigh those factors according to their importance. The scoring methodology should be included in the evaluation section. Proposals can be evaluated only using the criteria identified in the RFP. Stating the award criteria in the RFP and then following the criteria during the evaluation process makes the selection process easy to defend.

  • Evaluating proposals

    After issuing an RFP and receiving proposals, the government agency should assemble a committee to evaluate the proposals. The evaluation committee should meet prior to reading the proposals to discuss the scoring process so everyone understands how to judge proposals. Each member of the evaluation committee needs a copy of the RFP and an evaluation worksheet that lists all the mandatory requirements, scorable mandatory requirements, desirables and pricing information along with the maximum points available for each item.

    The first phase of the evaluation process involves judging the proposals’ mandatory requirements. They are evaluated on a pass or fail basis. If a vendor does not meet the minimum requirements, its proposal is rejected and is not evaluated further.

    In the second phase, committee members assign points to the scorable mandatory requirements and desirables based on how well they meet the government agency’s needs. In the third phase, committee members assign points to the pricing proposal.

    After the scorable mandatory requirements, desirables and pricing sections are evaluated, committee members add up the points awarded in those sections. Evaluation committee members should score the proposals independently and then meet as a group to discuss their decisions. When meeting as a group, the committee may assign a consensus score to each proposal.

    Writing an effective RFP is not an easy task. The process forces local governments to seriously consider their project goals and to explain them in sufficient detail to solicit solutions at competitive prices. While writing and evaluating RFPs may take more work than finding contractors through a traditional bid process, it allows local governments the flexibility to consider factors — other than price — that are important to completing a project successfully. A well-written RFP also makes the evaluation of proposals easier and the selection process defensible.

    The author is the purchasing coordinator for the Eugene (Ore.) Water & Electric Board.

Tags: Public Works & Utilities

Most Recent


  • New York mayor announces city-wide curbside composting program, impacting 8.5 million residents by 2024
    On the heels of a successful 3-month-long pilot program in Queens, New York City has announced the largest curbside composting program in the United States. The initiative will begin following a winter-long hiatus of the Queens pilot, which is set to return permanently March 27. Curbside service to Brooklyn will begin Oct. 2, followed by the […]
  • Phoenix
    Federal funds help fast-growing Arizona city address several infrastructure challenges and needs
    Joe Giudice, public works director for the city of Phoenix, says the influx of new residents is driving a lot of construction in his community. “Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States. It is one of the fastest growing cities in a fast-growing region, which influences infrastructure product and service demand. This […]
  • ARPA funds
    Spending American Rescue Plan Act funds: A primer for municipalities
    The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 is a $1.9 trillion legislative package that includes funding for states, local governments and tribal nations to respond to the economic and public health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. While initially restricted, subsequent guidance from the federal government has expanded what those funds can be used for. […]
  • landslides
    Managing landslides along road corridors using remote sensing
    Maintaining roads is an optimization problem. Local officials must balance limited and sometimes shrinking budgets with the needs of their communities to have safe and reliable transportation systems. Unfortunately, the importance of a particular maintenance issue is often judged based on anecdotal information and complaints from the public rather than hard data. This approach is […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • NLC releases State of Cities 2021 report
  • How local governments can get ahead of the infrastructure wave: Strategies to mitigate risk
  • Prioritizing rapid restore leads to stronger ransomware attack recovery
  • Ultrafast electric vehicle charging will propel local governments into the future

White papers


Modernizing government services for today’s resident expectations

24th January 2023

Preparing Your Community Now for the Next Generation of Older Adults

18th October 2022

Helping Government Fleets Achieve Their Goals

30th September 2022
view all

Webinars


How To: Evaluate Digital Government Service Delivery Technologies

23rd January 2023

Using Technology to Enhance Communications

29th November 2022

Learn the benefits of transforming and automating your Contract Management process

4th November 2022
view all

PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

GALLERIES


Report: While remote work is causing offices to empty out, walkable cities are still in high demand

26th January 2023

10 American cities with a great downtown

24th January 2023

Miami leads the way in FT-Nikkei ranking of best U.S. cities for foreign companies

20th January 2023
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

New York mayor announces city-wide curbside composting program, impacting 8.5 million residents by 2024 dlvr.it/ShhRk1

30th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Federal funds help fast-growing Arizona city address several infrastructure challenges and needs dlvr.it/ShhBtf

30th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

How 5G is making cities safer, smarter, and more efficient dlvr.it/ShYNcx

27th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Shifting city demographics present an opportunity to build coalitions, address inequality dlvr.it/ShYMMm

27th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Spending American Rescue Plan Act funds: A primer for municipalities dlvr.it/ShXzvl

27th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: While remote work is causing offices to empty out, walkable cities are still in high demand dlvr.it/ShVhBW

26th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Managing landslides along road corridors using remote sensing dlvr.it/ShTpL6

26th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: Prioritizing neighborhood infill, expanding transit options increases neighborhood resilience dlvr.it/ShRrFM

25th January 2023

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.