The request for proposals for the Portal certification system is the first point of success or failure. Needs are well written, and subsequent evaluations are based on a law-making method; needs are poorly written, commercial conversations are empty, and all are marked with pits. We have reviewed bids in schools, most often back to work is the demand section.
Punk One: Write Portal to all.
The most common pits are those that require Portal to filter content, protect against viruses and optimize bandwidth. The result is that every single one is unprofessional, the manufacturer has a pile of useless functions and the price is expensive. Portal's location is access and authentication, and content security and flow control is something else.
Punk two: A capacity to shoot a head.
The combination of the number of students in school multiplied by two is the most common capacity miscalculation. As has been said, there are now far more than two online devices per person, and peaks at late peaks and starting days are all too out of line. If you write only how many people you support, without actually measuring peaks and co-mingling numbers, the manufacturer can declare a model to pass, and it crashes. We ask for proof-based co-development and peak indicators.
Pocket III: Fuzzy docking requirements
Just one sentence supporting the matching of identity, without writing down what protocols, giving which fields and providing interfaces, is a blurry demand. When we change tenders, we write the standards, field mapping, data prescriptions, etc., and the manufacturer must include the matching cost in the bid, and it cannot be won until it adds up to the price.
Pocket IV: standard adjectiveization for acceptance and inspection
Writing high performance, high utility and stability, adjectives are not differentiated in evaluating bids, and the manufacturer says it is satisfied. The most important thing we have at heart is to replace adjectives with verbs and values: how many copies are supported and reached, how many seconds are eligible for a failure switch, and how many days for which a log will be kept. Once demand can be measured, the manufacturer is afraid to fill them in with words.
Powder five: ignores the requirements for a carrier
Many tenders are just functional, not operational: how many times a warning is sent, how long the logs are kept, how back-up is done, and how much time it takes to respond. As a result, no one is on the line and there is an accident before a request is found. We suggest that the bid include separate sections for the transport of the same dimensions, so that these daily most impacting entries can be clearly identified.
Pocket Six: lack of clarity on security responsibilities
Those responsibilities are all network-centric, if not stated in the bid. We write such clauses into business requirements, identify the boundaries between the builders and the schools, and avoid dumping each other when they get online.
Punk 7: No change of date.
Portal is not a hammer, it's always changing for three or five years. If the tender does not contain provisions on smooth upgrade and migration of old data, then the change of firm will be a reversal. We ask that the bid clearly identify data to export, move strategies, and leave a trail for ourselves in the future.
Replace adjective with verb
The seven above pits are essentially a problem: demand is not measurable. We change the bid for schools, and the core action is to match each requirement with an acceptable action. Support high-sum distribution, which is pressured; guarantee data security, which checks whether the password is explicit or the log contains marks. The tender is hard-written and the rest of the years are careful.
Shut up: The tender is so hard to score the true.
Let the manufacturer report the actual project.
The tender may include a clause requiring manufacturers to provide specific deployment and capacity options for the true peaks and interface environments of schools, rather than general product descriptions. We have seen who puts the data on the bid, and who is more likely to be selected or pre-screened for reading parameters. This one can force paper demand into something that can be landed, and the evaluation will be more based on the criteria.
Transparency of reference prices and ratings
We suggest that bids should have a clear picture of the weight of functions, performances, services, prices. Transparency is necessary to make hard demand really work in evaluating tenders, not being held hostage by low prices or relationships, and schools can buy it.
You'll have to answer questions and step on the trail.
The complex campus network project, which organizes the processors to survey and answer questions, is necessary. We have seen those who do not make a direct bid, and they know the site half-perfect it, and then touch the wall at the point where the bid was implemented.
Summary: Portal bid requirements are most easily peddled on the seven points of boundary, capacity, docking, receiving and inspection, bearing, liability, replacement. The adjectives are replaced with numbers and movements to make the tender lethal, so that the bid is evaluated horizontally against the real and not subject to presentation.