The way the solicitation documents are written, it's a direct decision on what you're gonna get.
The writing of tender documents is the most vulnerable to underestimation in the construction of the WiFi system on campus.
Many schools have the practice of having suppliers help draft technical parameters, and the supplier certainly wants to, after all, its own product parameters are the best. The problem is that the bids so written tend to be two features: a very detailed writing of the supplier’s own strengths and a single list of shortcomings; and a high-tech set of technical indicators that may not be useful in practice, while the functions that the school buys back at a price are idle.
The technical parameters of the bidding were written by themselves not because they did not trust suppliers but because schools themselves knew best what they wanted.
What you do before the bidding is more important than writing a bid.
Before writing technical parameters, there are several basic tasks to be done:
First, to find out what the existing network is. What equipment is used in the dormitory area, what equipment is used in the teaching area, and how many operators are exported from Bras, Authentication & Billing now have a few people on the transport team.——These conditions have a direct impact on the choice of options, are not clear about what parameters are written and are probably out of line with reality.
Second, to clarify the core claims and priorities. To address private misappropriations? To match a cartoon? To comply with a check-up or to replace a new system with a better interface?
Third, reference is made to the actual programmes of schools of the same type. Not necessarily the same size as schools, but what are the ways and which side roads are the projects that look at equal bandwidth, equal wiring capability, and equivalent management models?
What's the technical parameter for? Nothing.
The technical parameters section of the solicitation documents contains several categories of content to be written and some types of content to be considered.
It must be clear: the number of users and performance indicators to be distributed should have a quantitative description, but not specific numbers——Specific figures should require suppliers to provide empirical data or be validated during the POC testing phase; log retention capacity needs to be aligned with regulatory requirements, and clear retention cycles and field integrity requirements; standards for matching need to be clear, such as whether support is needed for RADIFUS, LDAP and which systems already exist; and failure response requirements to be specific, such as core hours of arrival, how SLA defaults will be punished.
Write carefully: do not use"National brand name""Top of the market."Such vague expressions are the threshold, and often end up as internal tools; nor do they overlay functional indicators to make them more effective."Yes."and"It's gonna work."Combination. The number of functions is not as practical as it is, and the function of solving one ' s core problems is what should be written into them.
PoC tested this part. It's not recommended.
For larger projects, it is recommended that the POC test phase be arranged prior to formal solicitation——The rounded-up supplier is allowed to run for a while in the real network environment, using real student traffic data to validate the programme.
PoC tests are much more authentic than paper parameters: do suppliers say how many or actually can carry it during the peak period of accommodation; NATSHEL_ANTI_SHARING is a beautiful accuracy mark, and what is the actual error rate?"Second-scale response"And, can you do it with real data? These things don't make a difference when they look at the parameters. They run.
POC tests also have the advantage of bringing in the school ' s own personnel to participate in the evaluation. They are more useful than listening to a supplier for PPT demonstrations by using the vendor ' s system and management interface.
The rating rules are bad. They're the most problematic.
The bid rating rules generally divide technical and commercial divisions. If a functional list is used only, the multifunctional supplier score will be high and can easily induce suppliers to stack their functions rather than grind core competencies.
The suggested points are: technology focuses on the actual capabilities of core functional modules, such as costing accuracy, NATSHEL_ANTI_SHALING accuracy, log retention integrity, implementation of safeguard programmes rather than longer than a list of parameters. Business looks at the substance of prices, after-sale services, default clauses.
There's a common trap in price ratings."Minimum bid"The WiFi system on campus is not a standardized commodity, with the lowest price unrepresentative ratio and the cost of subsequent maintenance costs and risk of failure to implement. Price sub-prime proposals impose caps that do not encourage suppliers to make bad price cuts.
In the end,
The solicitation documents are the starting point for the entire project, and the starting point is the one that has been missed, with a high cost of subsequent amendments. More time to study, more schools to see the site and more teams to discuss it. These inputs will be returned at the evaluation and implementation stages.