RFP Module 6 cheat sheet

The RFP Capstone is the terminal module of the RFP credential path: it assumes completion of the earlier modules and tests synthesis, not recall of a single topic.

Capstone deliverables typically combine a written RFP document, an evaluation/scoring instrument, and a presentation or defence; each is scored against separate weighted criteria.

A defensible RFP states need, scope, mandatory requirements, evaluation criteria with weights, submission instructions, and contract terms; omitting any of the six leaves the document open to challenge.

Weighted scoring rule: total score = Σ (criterion weight × evaluator score); weights must sum to 100% before evaluation begins, and any change after release requires an addendum.

Mandatory (pass/fail) requirements are checked before scoring; a non-compliant bid is excluded and never enters the weighted evaluation.

Clarification questions and answers must be circulated to all bidders simultaneously; unequal disclosure is a standard ground for protest.

Protest windows and bid-challenge deadlines are set by the procuring entity's rules; the capstone expects the candidate to name the mechanism, not a specific statutory number.

Change control rule: scope changes after contract award require a formal variation with re-priced cost and schedule impact, not a verbal instruction.

Evaluation models: lowest compliant price, weighted quality/cost (best value), and fixed-budget best technical proposal; the model must be declared in the RFP before bids arrive.

Price weighting inverse rule: when quality weight rises, price weight falls by the same amount; the pair must total 100%, so a stated 70/30 quality/price split fixes both numbers.

Consensus scoring: evaluators score independently first, then reconcile divergences; the reconciled score and the reason for divergence are recorded in the evaluation report.

Conflict-of-interest declarations are collected from every evaluator before they see any bid; an undeclared conflict invalidates that evaluator's scores.

Risk allocation principle: risk sits with the party best able to control it; liquidated damages, indemnities, and retention are the mechanisms that move risk to the supplier.

Bid security and performance security are distinct: bid security protects against withdrawal before award, performance security against default after award.

Award recommendation must state the winning bidder, the score, the rejected bids with reasons, and any reservations; a recommendation without rejection reasons is incomplete.

Debriefing rule: unsuccessful bidders receive their own scores and the winner's score, but not other bidders' confidential commercial detail.

Roles separate: the requester defines need, the procurement lead runs the process, the evaluation panel scores, and the approver signs; one person should not hold two of these roles.

Approval thresholds are tiered by value; the capstone expects the candidate to identify the correct approval tier for the contract value, not to quote a currency figure.

Communication during a live RFP flows only through the nominated contact; direct contact between a bidder and an evaluator is a disqualification trigger.

Stakeholder map minimum: sponsor, end users, procurement, legal, finance, IT/security, and the supplier community; each has a distinct interest to be managed.

Governance cadence: gate reviews at requirement sign-off, RFP release, evaluation close, and award; each gate has named entry and exit criteria.

Records retention: all bids, clarifications, scores, and the evaluation report are kept for the audit period; verbal scoring that is not written down is treated as not done.

Escalation rule: unresolved disagreement between requester and procurement goes to the sponsor, not to the bidder, and never extends a published deadline.

Lessons-learned capture at contract close feeds the next RFP cycle; repeat defects (unclear scope, unrealistic timetable) are the usual findings.

Standard RFP section order: background, scope and requirements, deliverables and timetable, evaluation criteria, submission instructions, contract terms, appendices.

Requirement numbering rule: every requirement carries a unique ID so bidders can respond line by line and evaluators can trace compliance to a specific clause.

Statement of work language must be measurable: "respond within 4 business hours" is testable; "respond quickly" is not and cannot be scored.

Submission format rules (page limits, file format, deadline, channel) are compliance conditions; breaching them permits rejection without evaluation.

Late bids are rejected unless the RFP explicitly allows a documented exception; the default position is rejection.

Contract type selection: fixed price fits stable well-defined scope; time-and-materials fits uncertain volume; the RFP must state which applies.

Terms and conditions are attached, not negotiated after award; bidders flag departures in a deviations schedule so the panel can price the risk.

Addenda are numbered, dated, and acknowledged by bidders in their submission; an unacknowledged addendum is a curable defect, not automatic rejection.

Defence structure: restate the need, justify the chosen evaluation model, present the score table, name the winner, and disclose the top risks with mitigations.

Score table must reconcile: criterion weights, raw scores, weighted scores, and the total must be arithmetically checkable by the panel.

Justify rejections with the specific failed requirement ID; "did not meet expectations" is not an acceptable reason.

Anticipate the three standard challenges: why this evaluation model, why this weight split, and why this bidder over the runner-up.

Risk register in the defence names likelihood, impact, owner, and mitigation for each top risk; unmitigated risk without an owner is a scoring weakness.

Timeline realism check: contract award, mobilisation, and go-live dates must be consistent with the stated evaluation and standstill periods.

Evidence rule: every claim in the presentation traces to a document in the RFP record; unsupported assertions are discounted by assessors.

Closing statement should state the recommendation, the conditions attached to award, and the next governance gate.

Scope creep at drafting: requirements are added after weights are set, so the evaluation no longer matches the need; correction is to freeze scope before weighting.

Over-specified requirements exclude capable suppliers; correction is to separate true mandatory items from desirable scored items.

Price-only evaluation is chosen for convenience and then cannot differentiate quality; correction is to declare a quality weight where quality is material.

Undisclosed sub-criteria let evaluators introduce criteria not in the RFP; correction is to publish the full scoring breakdown before release.

Inconsistent clarification answers create unequal information; correction is to publish one consolidated Q&A to all bidders.

Missing transition plan leaves the incumbent's exit unmanaged; correction is to require an exit and handover clause in the RFP.

Evaluation report written after the decision is a red flag; scores must be recorded contemporaneously at the scoring meeting.

Post-award variation used to fix a badly scoped RFP is the classic audit finding; correction is to re-tender when change exceeds the stated threshold.