We got the best score on reputation and price and still lost. They gave us 1 out of 5 on safety even though we don't have a single safety claim on our workers comp. Didn't even give us a chance to despite.
"On the pessimistic side, in cases where the 'fix is in', fudging one of these to favor whomever one wants is even easier than rigging the RFP."
If I was tasked to come up with a bullet-proof way of gaming an RFP system and awarding a contract to whomever I chose, I would be hard-pressed to design a better structure than they have in place here.
The weight of the scores of catagories, (price is twice as important as any other single issue) combined with the obvious arbitrary assignment of scores, makes a mockery of the public bid process. This document is the handiwork of a consultant justifying their fee. Just curious, were the bidders aware of any of this when they submitted their documents? If I were Convergint, I would take the win, but I would skip the victory lap.
Ironic that the two Convergints couldn't be more Divergent.
Which is good since then there's little chance of confusing them.
The fact they awarded to Convergint speaks volumes about how "smart" they are. They will come back to you when Convergint does a poor job and gets kicked out. We go against Convergint all the time, and well... They might as well be Diebold, ADT, or Tyco.
Where's the controversy? You have to love a customer that takes the time to establish a buying criteria, and has the guts to hopefully award a project on something more than just a low price......Interesting ranking of some of the bigger integration companies in our industry.
I have thought about this a little. As long as everyone knew ahead of time that the ranking system was going to be applied, it is not such a big deal. If they did not know, I would have to throw a flag. Usually public bids are low bid.
Evaluation criteria seems to be pretty well spelled out in the RFP on page 3.