HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-17; City Council; 6273; Approval of Computer RFP Review Criteria,-fITY OF CARLSBAD L .c:_10 7 . i (d}
:AGENDA BILL NO. ~-=c2_=_,_•;___,.3.___________ ~~~~~:t \. __ }/
DATE: ______ J __ u __ n __ e_1 __ 7'-'---=1=9--=8--0___________ C. A tty.
DEPARTMENT: Finance _..;;.,=.;;=:..::;.:;._, ____________ _ C. Mgr.~
Subject: APPROVAL OF COMPUTER RFP REVIEW CRITERIA
Stateme~t cf the Matter
On May 12, 1980-the staff distributed a RFP for a new city
computer system to about 20 vendors who have shown an interest
in our computer needs. Responses were to be returned to the
consultant by June 6, 1980. these proposals will now be reviewed
by the consultant and staff using the criteria described in the
attached memo.
After ranking, the city staff will enter into t~e competitive
negotiations with the highest ranked vendors and will select
tho vendor best suited to meet the city's needs.
Exhibits
Memo to City Manager, dated June 10, 1980
Memo to City }tanager, dated June 9, 1980, with pro_posed cri}eria.
Recommendations
By minute motion approve the proposed RFP review criteria and
instruct the staff to enter into the competitive Ddgotiations
with the vendors ranked highest by these criteria.
Council Action
6~17-80: Council approved the proposed RFP review criteria and
instructed staff to enter into the competitive negotiations
with the vendors ranked highest by these criteria.
DATE: JUNE 10, 1980
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR CITY COMPUTER SYSTEM
on May 12, 1980, the City distributed a Request For Proposal
for a new data pxocessing system to about twenty vendors.
These proposals were to outline systems that would meet the
City's specifications as approved by the Council on May 6,
1980. The vendors were to respond to our consultant,
Price Waterhouse, by June 6, 1980.
At this time it is important to accomplish two things. First,
the Council should review and approve the proposed evaluation
criteria. These criteria will be the basis for the ranking
of the vendors' proposals.
Second, the Council should instruct the staff to enter into
competitive negotiations with the most qualified vendors as
ranked by the proposed criteria. This process (Municipal
Code Section 3.28.140) is called for due to the highly technical
nature of the system specified by the RFP.
The staff will keep the City Manager and City Council informed
during ·e negotiation process.
JE:ldg
MEMORANDUM
D..ATE: June 9, 1980
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMPUTER REVIEW CRITERIA
On May 12, 1980, the City distributed a request for proposal for a
new computer system to about 20 vendors. These proposals were due
back to Price Waterhouse on June 6, 1980, and are now undergoing
evaluation.
I believe it is important £or the Manager and Council to understand
the evaluation criteria that will be used to review these proposals.
These criteria will be a determining factor in the type of system
the City eventually installs. If there are weaknesses in the criteria,
the recommended system may reflect these weaknesses.
The evaluation of proposals will follow a two step process. First,
the proposals will be reviewed on a total basis to be sure the
vendors have substantially responded to all parts of the RFP.
~ny major deficiencies in the hardware, software, maintenance,
company stability, availability of software support or existence of
offsite facilities for backup will eliminate the vendor from further
evaluation.
Second, those vendors who pass the first basic tests will be evaluated
using the seven points outlined on the attachment. These points
reflect the seven factors that Price Waterhouse will use to determine
a numerical rating of the remaining proposals.
A numerical score will be subjectively determined on each factor
by Mr. Poppe of Price Waterhouse and myself. For example, a company
whose software is a good match to the RFP requirements, but lacks a
few minor programs might receive a score on software of 18 out of a
maximum of 20 points. A vendor whose maintenance support comes from
Tucson, Arizona may receive a score of 5 out of a maximum score of
15 points. Whereas, a vendor whose support comes from San Diego on
a guaranteed one hour response might receive the maximum score of
15 on maintenance. The total of all scores will determine the
relative score for that system.
Relative weights have been established for each £actor. Most heavily
weighted are software quality and system cost at 20% each. The
hardware itself, vendor maintenance and ease of use each received a
,r-..
PROPOSED COMPUTER REVIEW CRITERIA
June 9, 1980
Page 2
-
a weight of 15%. The final factors are flexibility and expandability
at 10% and availability of offsite equipment for backup at 5%.
If the Manager or Council has any comments on these criteria we would
appreciate the input. If the weighting or criteria are to be adjusted,
now is the time to make changes. If you would like further information,
I'd e happy to meet with you at your convenience.
Attachment
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
A preliminary evaluation of all vendor responses will
be performed to identify the acceptable vendor proposals.
We will eliminate from further consideration any vendor
proposal which is unacceptable based on one or more of the
criteria below. For example, a vendor proposal which is
otherwise acceptable could be eliminated due to a lack of
vendor stability sufficient to ensure continued system
maintenance and support.
We expect to perform a detailed evaluation of approx-
imately 3 to 4 vendor proposals. The results of this
evaluation will be included in our report to the City. The
following criteria and weights will be used in the detailed
evaluation of the acceptable vendor proposals.
1.
2.
Fit of pToposed application software
Proposed hardware and system software
3. Cost including hardware, software,
data conversion and maintenance
4. Vendor maintenance and support of
hardware and software
5. Ease of use including:
a. instructions atld documentation
b. training
20%
15%
20%
15%
-2 -
c. minimizing EDP personnel cost
d. ease of special (one-time)
report generation
6. Flexibility, ease and cost of
future expansion
7. Availability of off-site facilities
for backup processing
Total
1.5%
10%
}-QO%