Old MathJax webview

Assignment:

You are to write a response to Mr. Atkinson at General Electrical Services Ltd. outlining your decision regarding his concerns. You just justify your position and decision after considering all the points made by Mr. Atkinson.

Your letter is not to exceed four (4) pages in length and is to be in a formal business letter format.

CASE SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD Introduction On January 7, 2018, the South-western Public School Board distributed to pro- spective vendors the Request for Proposal for Professional Facility Services Con- sultants. In the next few weeks the proposals were collected and evaluated, and on March 23, 2018, the winner of the contract, as well as unsuccessful bidders, was notified of the decisions. In two weeks, Bob Rogers, the Supervisor of Supply Management Department, received a letter from Mr. Atkinson, the CEO of one of un successful bidders, General Electrical Services Ltd. Mr. Atkinson questioned the reason for denyinghisfirm's proposal and threatened to take litigation against South-western Public School Board for unfair bidding practices. Bob had to re- spond to this letter, but what should he write? He also believed that the process of bidding might need to be revised to protect the Board from such lawsuits in the future, but what exactly could be done? Background In 2018, the South-western Public School Board oversaw approximately 200 pub- lic schools within the 4 counties in the south-western part of the province of On- tario, Canada. One of the responsibilities of the Board was to ensure that the school facilities are maintained in good conditions. The Board had an annual re- newal budget of approximately C$10,000,000, which was utilizedfor replacement of major building components, small additions, and renovations of the schools Every five years the Board conducted the bidding for Professional Facility Ser- vices Consultants in the architectural, electrical, environmental, mechanical roof- ing, structural, and civil areas. This bidding, called the Request for Proposal (REP), was aimed at choosing and establishing partnerships with vendors who would provide the Board with the services of the best value. One or two vendors were chosen in every area. They were awarded three-year contracts with a two- year extension option, and were responsible for design, tendering, construction and commissioning on facility services projects or school renewal projects up to one million dollars. The Bidding Process When Bob Rogers joined the South-western Public School Board in March 2017, he found that the Supply Management Department was a poorly organized divi- sion which did not have a leader and lacked clearly defined bidding procedures It appeared that the evaluation criteria were not consistently applied to all pro- posals, and the decisions were sometimes made before all submissions were considered. To improve the situation, Bob started to develop standards for RFP. The process was based on experience, common sense and regulations, he for- mulated specific guidelines for every stage of the bidding process. These stand- ards became mandatory for all supply management staff. According to these standards, the bidding process began with an alyzing the needs and determining the services sought by the Board. Next, preliminary time- lines for the RFP were established and the Proposal Evaluation Committee was formed. Thereafter, supply managers developed specifications for the services and defined criteria by which submissions would be measured. This information was summarized in the RFP document which was posted on the South-westem Public School Board's website and the electronic service of Bidnavigator website to solicit responses from the vendors. Upon receipt, the proposals were date stamped by the clerk and placed in the Tender Box until the opening day. At the opening, every proposal was checked for compliance with the closing date and the rules for submission. Late proposals were returned to senders unopened, and proposals violating the rules for submission were deemed non-compliant and eliminated from competition. The Committee evaluated the remaining proposals by using a point system, and the highest-scoring vendor was approved by the Executive Council and the Board. Finally, the bidders were notified of the Com- mittee's decisions. The winnerwas awarded a contract, andun successful bidders could request a debriefing to explain why the proposal was not selected The 2018 Bidding Episode On January 7, 2018, the South-western Public School Board issued a RFP for Professional Facility Services Consultants for the period from April 1, 2018 until March 31, 2021, with a possibility of renewing the contract until March 31, 2023 Forty-three proposals were submitted in response to this request. They were evaluated based on five criteria: Qualifications (10%) Availability of resources (10%) Experience (30%) Knowledge of regulations and codes (15%) References (25%) . Yukon & Co. Ltd. received the highest score of 91 and was awarded a contract. Two proposals were returned unopened to the vendors because of late submis- sions, and nine proposals were opened but eliminated from the competition because of non-compliance with the rules of submission. One of them, General Electrical Services Ltd., would have compared favourably to the winner if its pro- posal had been evaluated; however, its bid was found non-complaint. On March 23, 2018, the company was notified that its bid was not considered because the length of its proposal exceeded ten-page limit stipulated in the RFP. On April 5, 2018, Mr. Atkinson, the CEO of General Electrical Services Ltd., wrote a letter to Bob Rogers. He argued that his firm's proposal was in compliance with the RFP requirements because the body of proposal was nine pages long. Its total length exceeded 10 pages only because of the enclosed appendices, and the RFP provided no specific guidelines regarding the length of such enclosures Mr. Atkinson added that his company had submitted identical proposal and won a contract with the North-western Ontario Public School Board. Thus, he doubted that non-compliance with the rules of submission was the real reason behind the denial of his firm's proposal. The letter concluded with a threat to pursue litigation again st the South- western Public School Board for unfair bidding practices This episode presented several problems to Bob Rogers. First, the losses from litigation with the General Electrical Services Ltd. could be up to one million dol- lars. Second, if General Electrical Services Ltd. won the case, the court might demand reconsideration of the RFP results which in turn, would lead to revoking the contract from the currentwinner an dto an other costly litigation with him. Next, the Board con du cted RFP's on a regular basis, and Bob was thinking whether this episode would affect the Board's reputation and discourage some vendors from participating in the future RFP's. Finally. Rogers believed that RFP rules should be applied consistently to all submissions and did not want to make ex- ception sfor any bidder, however, he was wondering whetherthe rejections based on non-compliance were in the Board's best interests. What if non-compliant pro- posals were from vendors who would have provided the best services to the may be a victim of software counterfeiting. Avoid interruption an Board? Conclusion The situation with the General Electrical Services Ltd. required immediate reac- tion, and Bob was thinking about how he should respond to the letter from Mr. Atkinson. Also, the Board planned to issue a RFP for office equipment supplies at the end of May, 2018, and Bob's concern was how to prevent similar problems in the future and whether the bidding procedures needed to be changed Assignment: You are to write a response to Mr. Atkinson at General Electrical Services Ltd. outlining your decision regarding his concerns. You just ju stify your position and decision after considering all the points made by Mr. Atkinson Your letter is not to exceed four (4) pages in length andis to be in a formal busi- ness letter format. Exhibit 1 RFP Requirements for Documents Submissions Bidders must submit the following information: 1. Each Proposal must be structured using only the criteria identified in this proposal. When submitting Proposals, each bidder must use the same numbering format, as in this Request for Proposal. 2. Each bidder must provide FIVE copies of their submission 3. Submissions must not exceed 10 pages (8 1/2 x 11 - SINGLE sided) in addition to returning this RFP document. 4. Clearly identify which of the building consultants discipline you are request- ing consideration for 5. List the Professional Qualifications of the Principals and Partners in the firm. 6. State the size of the firm including Professional Architects, or Engineers, Technologists, Technicians, Site Inspectors, etc. Please provide specific details of education, experience and present involvement. Also indicate which firm's representative will be the key contact and which staff mem- ber(s) would be assigned to handle the Board's needs should your sub- mission be accepted. 7. List the prime consultants that you may use. 8. State the Amount of Profession al Liability Insurance Coverage that you will have in place for a project. 9. The Board views this Agreement as a partnership with the approved con- sultants. The consultants are to submit any and all existing ongoing pro- fession al relation ships or agreements with other institutional organizations with a similar project scope as requested through this proposal. State the performance and outcomes that your firm has achieved with those organ- izations. Also comment on processes you utilize to deliver projects CASE SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD Introduction On January 7, 2018, the South-western Public School Board distributed to pro- spective vendors the Request for Proposal for Professional Facility Services Con- sultants. In the next few weeks the proposals were collected and evaluated, and on March 23, 2018, the winner of the contract, as well as unsuccessful bidders, was notified of the decisions. In two weeks, Bob Rogers, the Supervisor of Supply Management Department, received a letter from Mr. Atkinson, the CEO of one of un successful bidders, General Electrical Services Ltd. Mr. Atkinson questioned the reason for denyinghisfirm's proposal and threatened to take litigation against South-western Public School Board for unfair bidding practices. Bob had to re- spond to this letter, but what should he write? He also believed that the process of bidding might need to be revised to protect the Board from such lawsuits in the future, but what exactly could be done? Background In 2018, the South-western Public School Board oversaw approximately 200 pub- lic schools within the 4 counties in the south-western part of the province of On- tario, Canada. One of the responsibilities of the Board was to ensure that the school facilities are maintained in good conditions. The Board had an annual re- newal budget of approximately C$10,000,000, which was utilizedfor replacement of major building components, small additions, and renovations of the schools Every five years the Board conducted the bidding for Professional Facility Ser- vices Consultants in the architectural, electrical, environmental, mechanical roof- ing, structural, and civil areas. This bidding, called the Request for Proposal (REP), was aimed at choosing and establishing partnerships with vendors who would provide the Board with the services of the best value. One or two vendors were chosen in every area. They were awarded three-year contracts with a two- year extension option, and were responsible for design, tendering, construction and commissioning on facility services projects or school renewal projects up to one million dollars. The Bidding Process When Bob Rogers joined the South-western Public School Board in March 2017, he found that the Supply Management Department was a poorly organized divi- sion which did not have a leader and lacked clearly defined bidding procedures It appeared that the evaluation criteria were not consistently applied to all pro- posals, and the decisions were sometimes made before all submissions were considered. To improve the situation, Bob started to develop standards for RFP. The process was based on experience, common sense and regulations, he for- mulated specific guidelines for every stage of the bidding process. These stand- ards became mandatory for all supply management staff. According to these standards, the bidding process began with an alyzing the needs and determining the services sought by the Board. Next, preliminary time- lines for the RFP were established and the Proposal Evaluation Committee was formed. Thereafter, supply managers developed specifications for the services and defined criteria by which submissions would be measured. This information was summarized in the RFP document which was posted on the South-westem Public School Board's website and the electronic service of Bidnavigator website to solicit responses from the vendors. Upon receipt, the proposals were date stamped by the clerk and placed in the Tender Box until the opening day. At the opening, every proposal was checked for compliance with the closing date and the rules for submission. Late proposals were returned to senders unopened, and proposals violating the rules for submission were deemed non-compliant and eliminated from competition. The Committee evaluated the remaining proposals by using a point system, and the highest-scoring vendor was approved by the Executive Council and the Board. Finally, the bidders were notified of the Com- mittee's decisions. The winnerwas awarded a contract, andun successful bidders could request a debriefing to explain why the proposal was not selected The 2018 Bidding Episode On January 7, 2018, the South-western Public School Board issued a RFP for Professional Facility Services Consultants for the period from April 1, 2018 until March 31, 2021, with a possibility of renewing the contract until March 31, 2023 Forty-three proposals were submitted in response to this request. They were evaluated based on five criteria: Qualifications (10%) Availability of resources (10%) Experience (30%) Knowledge of regulations and codes (15%) References (25%) . Yukon & Co. Ltd. received the highest score of 91 and was awarded a contract. Two proposals were returned unopened to the vendors because of late submis- sions, and nine proposals were opened but eliminated from the competition because of non-compliance with the rules of submission. One of them, General Electrical Services Ltd., would have compared favourably to the winner if its pro- posal had been evaluated; however, its bid was found non-complaint. On March 23, 2018, the company was notified that its bid was not considered because the length of its proposal exceeded ten-page limit stipulated in the RFP. On April 5, 2018, Mr. Atkinson, the CEO of General Electrical Services Ltd., wrote a letter to Bob Rogers. He argued that his firm's proposal was in compliance with the RFP requirements because the body of proposal was nine pages long. Its total length exceeded 10 pages only because of the enclosed appendices, and the RFP provided no specific guidelines regarding the length of such enclosures Mr. Atkinson added that his company had submitted identical proposal and won a contract with the North-western Ontario Public School Board. Thus, he doubted that non-compliance with the rules of submission was the real reason behind the denial of his firm's proposal. The letter concluded with a threat to pursue litigation again st the South- western Public School Board for unfair bidding practices This episode presented several problems to Bob Rogers. First, the losses from litigation with the General Electrical Services Ltd. could be up to one million dol- lars. Second, if General Electrical Services Ltd. won the case, the court might demand reconsideration of the RFP results which in turn, would lead to revoking the contract from the currentwinner an dto an other costly litigation with him. Next, the Board con du cted RFP's on a regular basis, and Bob was thinking whether this episode would affect the Board's reputation and discourage some vendors from participating in the future RFP's. Finally. Rogers believed that RFP rules should be applied consistently to all submissions and did not want to make ex- ception sfor any bidder, however, he was wondering whetherthe rejections based on non-compliance were in the Board's best interests. What if non-compliant pro- posals were from vendors who would have provided the best services to the may be a victim of software counterfeiting. Avoid interruption an Board? Conclusion The situation with the General Electrical Services Ltd. required immediate reac- tion, and Bob was thinking about how he should respond to the letter from Mr. Atkinson. Also, the Board planned to issue a RFP for office equipment supplies at the end of May, 2018, and Bob's concern was how to prevent similar problems in the future and whether the bidding procedures needed to be changed Assignment: You are to write a response to Mr. Atkinson at General Electrical Services Ltd. outlining your decision regarding his concerns. You just ju stify your position and decision after considering all the points made by Mr. Atkinson Your letter is not to exceed four (4) pages in length andis to be in a formal busi- ness letter format. Exhibit 1 RFP Requirements for Documents Submissions Bidders must submit the following information: 1. Each Proposal must be structured using only the criteria identified in this proposal. When submitting Proposals, each bidder must use the same numbering format, as in this Request for Proposal. 2. Each bidder must provide FIVE copies of their submission 3. Submissions must not exceed 10 pages (8 1/2 x 11 - SINGLE sided) in addition to returning this RFP document. 4. Clearly identify which of the building consultants discipline you are request- ing consideration for 5. List the Professional Qualifications of the Principals and Partners in the firm. 6. State the size of the firm including Professional Architects, or Engineers, Technologists, Technicians, Site Inspectors, etc. Please provide specific details of education, experience and present involvement. Also indicate which firm's representative will be the key contact and which staff mem- ber(s) would be assigned to handle the Board's needs should your sub- mission be accepted. 7. List the prime consultants that you may use. 8. State the Amount of Profession al Liability Insurance Coverage that you will have in place for a project. 9. The Board views this Agreement as a partnership with the approved con- sultants. The consultants are to submit any and all existing ongoing pro- fession al relation ships or agreements with other institutional organizations with a similar project scope as requested through this proposal. State the performance and outcomes that your firm has achieved with those organ- izations. Also comment on processes you utilize to deliver projects