broward county government purchasing division rfp...broward county government purchasing division...

Broward County Government

Purchasing Division Finance and Administrative Services Department

RFP Process Improvement

Team Report October 2013 – May 2014

Submitted by

Glenn Miller RFP Process Improvement Team Chair

May 2014

May 2014 Page 1

Purchasing Division

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 2

Team Meeting Outcomes .................................................................................... 3

Team Membership .............................................................................................. 4

RFP As-Is Process Phases ..................................................................................... 5

Areas of Improvements/Suggested Solutions/Improvement Metrics

Approval Levels -

Purchasing Director ................................................................................. 6

County Administrator ............................................................................. 13

Board of County Commissioners ........................................................... 14

RFP As-Is Process Map ....................................................................................... 17

May 2014 Page 2

Purchasing Division

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The RFP (Request for Proposal) Process Improvement Team was created by the Procurement Task Force to review the County’s current RFP process and make suggestions for improvement. The team members were comprised of service providers (Purchasing staff), customers (client agencies), and other individuals involved in the RFP process such as the County Attorney’s office. In order to improve a process, all parties of the various functions need to participate. The illustration on the right outlines the actions the team followed to create the recommendations submitted in this report. In order to determine how a process should be, the first action was to define how it currently is and how long the process takes to be completed. Building upon the work completed by the Purchasing Division earlier in 2013, the team reviewed Purchasing’s recent changes to avoid duplication of efforts. One of these changes included moving away from an RLI (Request for Letter of Interest) Process and using the RFP Process as the primary procurement method. Since the use of the RFP is fairly recent, the data used to define the process was a combination of both RFP and RLI processes. After defining the as-is process, the team determined an RFP/RLI process (from start to finish) can take on average one to two years to complete with a fully executed contract when there are no demonstrations, protests, or appeals. The majority of the RFP processes are completed in the lower end of this range. However, when ALL of the possible additional steps are added to the process, an RFP/RLI may take substantially longer to finalize. The data provided in this report reflects the consensus from the team members’ experiences, the collection of input from their supporting staff, and statistics Purchasing had collected from the past two years of RFP/RLI submittals. The team proposes 25 recommendations that support process changes, approval modifications, and development of new tools and strategies to streamline the RFP process. These recommendations are categorized by the type of authority required to implement the recommendation. There are three levels of approval:

- Purchasing Director - County Administrator - Board of County Commissioners

Each item is defined by the area of improvement, suggested solution, and improvement metric (value-added result). The team respectfully submits this report and encourages action to be taken on these recommendations. In addition, it is suggested that a review of the actions implemented be revisited in one year (May 2015) to evaluate the result of these efforts.

RFP Improvement Process

Identify the As-Is Process including all functions

involved

Define cycle time for each step in the process

Identify disconnects, redundancies, and time

wasters

Recommend solutions to create the Should-Be

Process

May 2014 Page 3

Purchasing Division

TEAM MEETING OUTCOMES

The team had representation from a variety of divisions who utilize the RFP process on a regular basis. The synergy of the members and the high participation at the monthly (3 hour) meetings contributed to the success of achieving the meeting outcomes over the course of eight months. In between each meeting, members reviewed the summary of discussions, shared input for document accuracy, gathered feedback from within their own departments, and completed applicable action items.

Meeting Date

Meeting Outcomes

10-17-13 Defined plan to achieve RFP Process Improvement Team goal

Exploration of potential RFP issues

11-20-13 Agreement on linear as-is process for current RFP practice

Confirmation of responsible parties for each step in the process

12-16-13 Agreement on cross functional map and parties involved

Assignment of appropriate cycle time for steps in the process

List of “sub-process” components that may affect County RFP process

01-09-14 Determination of milestones in the RFP Process

Assignment of appropriate cycle time for steps in the process

Identification of disconnects, hold times, and areas for improvement

01-21-14 Confirmation all duration times were accurately captured from previous meeting and agreement on milestones (and titles)

Identification of the remaining 15% of duration times and milestones in the RFP As-Is Process

Identification of disconnects, time wasters, and causes for

03-12-14 Identification of disconnects, time wasters, and causes for inefficiencies in the RFP process

Generation of suggested improvements for these areas Determination of expected value of improvement (i.e. time saved, errors

diminished, cost savings)

04-02-14 Continued identification of disconnects, time wasters, and causes for inefficiencies in the RFP process

Generation of suggested improvements for these areas Determination of expected value of improvement (i.e. time saved, errors

diminished, cost savings)

04-21-14 Update on Procurement Task Force current status as it relates to the RFP Team Final approval of Team recommendations and prioritization Input on strategies for the Procurement Task Force presentation and reporting

May 2014 Page 4

Purchasing Division

TEAM MEMBERS

Active Team Members

Tim Garling, Transit

Mandy Wells, Community Partnerships

David Anderton, Port Everglades

Patricia Simes, ETS

Lou Metz, Parks & Recreation

Jeffrey Thompson, Construction Mgt.

Glenn Miller, County Attorney’s Office

Attendees: (Invited guests)

Mike Saltzman, Port Everglades

John Horne, Port Everglades

Gary Bogumill, Port Everglades

Christine Calhoun, Purchasing

Lina Kulikowski, Transit

Purchasing

Karen Walbridge, Process Map Presenter

Sean McSweeney, Visio Recorder

Co-Facilitators

Glenn Miller (Team Chair) and Ronnie Glotzbach

[Left to right]

Standing – Mandy Wells, Tim Garling, Glenn Miller, Lina Kulikowski, (by phone), Lou Metz

Seated – Christine Calhoun, Pat Simes, Mike Saltzman

Members not pictured – David Anderton, Jeffrey Thompson, Karen Walbridge

Regular guests and support not pictured – Gary Bogumill, John Horne, Sean McSweeney

May 2014 Page 5

Purchasing Division

RFP AS-IS PROCESS PHASES

Upon completion of the RFP As-Is process map, logical phases of the process were defined and cycle

time was applied to each phase. (See table below) The following pages include areas of improvement

and improvement metrics which make mention of these phases. Although the complete As-Is map can

be found at the end of this report, the table provides a quick reference guide for as to where the

suggested solution would apply and how the improvement metric would make a difference.

Approval of the recommendations is categorized by three levels:

- Purchasing Director

- County Administrator

- Board of County Commissioners

Each item is defined by the area of improvement, suggested solution, and improvement metric (value-

added result).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Reference to “days” is defined as “business days” not “calendar days”.

RFP AS-IS PROCESS – DURATION TIMES PER PHASE (SEE RFP AS-IS MAP –PAGE 16)

Business Days Additional Business Days

Minimum Maximum

Phase #1 REQUISTION 20 26

Phase #2 RFP APPROVAL 36 76

Phase #3 OPEN SUBMITTALS 19 24 w/Protest 34 - 84

Phase #4 INITIAL EVALUATION 36 36

Phase #5 FINAL EVALUATION 20 25

w/Demo 31-41 w/no Demo & Appeal 65-85 w/Demo & Appeal 76-101

Phase #6 BOARD RANKING APPROVAL

26 41 w/Protest 41 -121

Phase #7 APPROVE CONTRACT 72 238 w/ Option 4 & Protest 143 to 369

Total No protest; no demo; no appeal

229

(1 year)

466

(2 years)

Add ALL the possible additional business days above and the maximum time is 3+ years

Note: Data listed above includes estimated days of both the RFP/RLI process.

May 2014 Page 6

Purchasing Division

PURCHASING DIRECTOR APPROVAL

Area of Improvement #1

The County Attorney’s Office (and other supporting staff) is not involved in the RFP process until a minimum of 41 to 77 business days after the initial request. At this point, if items need to be changed, the RFP is returned to Purchasing and additional 15-25 business days are added to the process.

Suggested Solution for Should Be Process

Process-Oriented Improvement

In lieu of the current step one in the process, “Consult with Purchasing”, change the step to “Hold a Strategy Meeting”. This meeting would involve all impacted agencies including but not limited to Client Agency, Purchasing, Risk Management, OESBD, County Attorney’s Office, Financial staff, ETS, if applicable, and the Internal Auditor. At the Strategy Meeting, the participants would discuss and agree upon the course of action in proceeding with the RFP resulting in a “meeting outcome” document (similar to the “concurrence memo” presently used for vendor approval for bid solicitations) prepared by Purchasing. The resulting document should outline collective decisions agreed upon at the meeting and would ensure no changes to the process or forms unless required by law or Board policy.

The Strategy Meeting needs to be structured so participants have clear expectations of each person’s role and responsibility. The scheduling of Strategy Meetings may vary but should be based on the needs of the Client Agency; with meeting dates and times being institutionalized and becoming part of the new RFP Process. It is also recommended a checklist be developed for consistency in conducting Strategy Meetings and achieving outcomes.

Improvement Metric Minimize delay in the process; eliminating 15-25 days of rework from Phases I and 2 which currently takes 56-102 days

Area of Improvement #2 County RFP related forms continuously change throughout the year. Client agencies are not informed of the changes and start the process on one form and then need to redo the paperwork on a new form in the middle of the process. This delays the process during phases 1 and 2, which currently total 56-102 days.



Identify August 1st of each year as the date for new forms [including Purchasing forms and County Attorney forms (CAF)] to be implemented, allowing any RFP processes starting before this date to remain with the original forms in use. Exception: Unless required by Board policy or law.

On August 1st of each year all new forms will be released and clearly communicated county-wide to all agencies.

Purchasing should annually request feedback from client agencies on the RFP template and other tools being used.

May 2014 Page 7

Purchasing Division

Improvement Metric Minimize delay and errors in the process; eliminating approximately 5 days of rework from Phases I and 2 which currently takes 56-102 days


Unlike the RLI process, it is not customary in the RFP process to have vendor presentations because the scope of services is more specific in the solicitation and the resulting proposals are more detailed. Furthermore, a considerable amount of time, energy, and funds are spent on RFP presentations by both the vendors and staff. In most instances, presentations are general in nature and reflect what is already included in the vendors’ written proposals.



If the Client Agency thinks it is necessary to have presentations, a justification memo will need to be provided to the Purchasing Director explaining the need for the presentations. The decision on the necessity for presentations should be agreed upon at the “strategy meeting” (Recommendation #1) and the requirement and presentation expectations should be reflected in the RFP. Alternatively, if presentations are not utilized, the RFP should clearly indicate that the Evaluation Committee has the discretion to ask vendors questions regarding the proposals at the Evaluation Committee meetings and prior to scoring. The RFP should clearly indicate that it is recommended (but not required) for vendors to attend the Evaluation Committee meetings either in person on telephonically in order to answer questions.

Improvement Metric Maximum return on time spent in presentation meetings if required. Potentially minimizing protests since currently all vendors may view presentations of other vendors, possibly giving an advantage to those presenting later in the schedule. Possible lower vendor proposal fees since travel costs and cost for presentations would be eliminated.


Similar to RFP presentations, client agencies should only request demonstrations if absolutely necessary. (i.e. Software needs to show compatibility with County systems) There is limited new information obtained during the current demonstration process.



If the Using Agency thinks it is necessary to have demonstrations, a justification memo will need to be provided to the Purchasing Director explaining the need for the presentation. The decision on the necessity for demonstrations should be agreed upon at the “strategy meeting” (Recommendation #1) and the demonstration requirement and detailed expectations of the demonstration outcomes need to be included upfront in the RFP.

May 2014 Page 8

Purchasing Division

Improvement Metric Maximum return on time spent in during demonstration meetings if required. Potentially minimizing protests since currently all vendors may view demonstrations of other vendors, possibly giving an advantage to those presenting later in the schedule. Possible lower vendor proposal fees since travel costs and cost for demonstrations would be eliminated.

Area of Improvement #5 Vendors only have 1-5 days to prepare for demonstrations if selected as a qualified vendor. This only allows for 1 business week to complete script, make travel arrangements, and prepare for meeting.



Send demonstration scripts to proposers earlier in the process. Attach the script to the RFP solicitation template.

Improvement Metric Improved quality of demonstrations; minimize potential protest


If an RFP is protested after the final recommendations of rankings are posted, the time to resolve the protest currently takes 15-80 days depending upon whether the protest is denied and appealed. Two of the contributing factors to this timeframe is the time it takes for Purchasing to respond to the initial protest and the time it takes to hold a hearing if the protest is appealed due to the expansive amount of discovery options.



The filing of a protest should be treated as a priority for the Using Agency, Purchasing, CAO and any other impacted staff. Recognizing that the review and response to the protest often requires intra-departmental coordination of issues, there should be established standard turnaround times to expedite the coordination between agencies. The final response time to the initial protest should be within 20 days of receipt of filing. (Purchasing Director Approval required for this suggested solution.)

If the protest is denied, and the vendor appeals the denial and requests a hearing, a considerable amount of time exists between the filing of the appeal and the actual hearing. One of the factors that creates delay is the ability of the protestor to seek extensive discovery since the Procurement Code does not place many limitations on the discovery process. Therefore, to expedite the appeal process, the Procurement Code should limit protestor’s ability to seek discovery within 20 days of the filing of the appeal and require a hearing to take place within the next 20 days after discovery completion. (Board Approval required for this suggested solution. See page 16 of this report.)

May 2014 Page 9

Purchasing Division

Improvement Metric By placing limits on the County’s response time to an initial protest and limiting discovery in the protest process of Phases 3 and 6, the limitations can eliminate at least 15-30 days form the overall RFP process depending upon whether the protest is appealed.

Area of Improvement #7 The Evaluation Matrix takes considerable time to create and leaves subjective choices to the project manager as the creator of the Matrix. The project manager needs to determine which critical components of a vendor’s RFP submittal should be inserted (“cut and pasted”) into the matrix to fairly and equally rate each vendor. These subjective choices/decisions potentially may contribute to the cause of a Protest/Appeal adding another 45-60 days from Phase 5 after proposers are notified.


Strategy/Tool Improvement

Create a new template that allows the vendors to “fill in” (with designated number of words per category) answers including yes/no and not applicable options. Include text boxes to request vendors to complete their own “cut and paste” and submit the “reason” they would make the best choice as most qualified for the contract within an allotted amount of space. This information would be used to create the Evaluation Matrix and may minimize a possible protest/appeal later in the process.

Improvement Metric The new matrix template will decrease Evaluation Matrix development time by 5-10 days. In addition, it will improve objectivity, accuracy, and timely release of the Evaluation Matrix to the Evaluation Committee. It is expected to minimize the number of protests based upon matrix issues. (Protest/Appeals: 45-60 days).

Area of Improvement #8 Client agencies are currently “starting from scratch” each time they draft the Project Specific criteria that are required from the vendors to be provided in response. This can be time consuming and seems to be “recreating the wheel”.



Collect and sort information for similar projects. Build an “information bank” with pre-approved language that project managers can access.

A database will be available from the automated submittal process (BidSync) that will provide inquiries of past scope or project specific criteria. It is recommended that the implementation of this automated tool be prioritized for the RFP process.

Improvement Metric Improved consistency of RFP evaluation criteria; potentially reduce time to complete an RFP for Phase 1 of the process.

May 2014 Page 10

Purchasing Division

Area of Improvement #9 The County considers the exceptions taken to the County’s Standard Contract Terms and Conditions as part of the vendor’s overall proposal to be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee. Consequently, staff reviews the vendors’ exceptions with the Evaluation Committee and provides an overview response. However, this critical review process is very time consuming particularly when the exception(s) are not clear and/or the reason for request is not stated.



Change the language of the RFP template to require vendors taking exceptions to provide a “redline” version of the provision(s) with tracked changes or specific alternate proposed language. Request the vendors to provide a brief justification specifically addressed to each provision to which an exception is taken.

Improvement Metric Eliminating 5 days from Phase 4 of the process.


The reference check can be time consuming for the client agency. Often references are unavailable and may be difficult to reach.



There is a need to streamline the reference process to ensure vendors provide accurate and detailed information in order to minimize client agency call time. Identify clear guidelines on the number of references required and the number of attempts that will be made by staff to contact the references.

Include the Reference Check form in the RFP and require all “Reference” forms to be completed at the time of proposal submittal for verification by the County.

Revisit the current Reference Check form and include language such as, “If verification of references is not available or unable to respond within 2 days, the reference shall not be considered valid and the vendor will be notified.”

Improvement Metric Eliminating 5-10 days in Phase 4 of the process.


There is a lack of consistency in how the “Scope of Work” [Exhibit A] is written by the client agency ranging from a generic paragraph to several detailed pages. A scope of work which is not well defined can result in a lack of vendors understanding the totality of the required work and consequently prolonged negotiations.

May 2014 Page 11

Purchasing Division



The RFP process contemplates including a detailed scope of service. The scope should not be just a summary. It should include specific components such as phase descriptions, tasks, etc. In order to provide consistency throughout the County, standards should be created and applied to all client agencies. To assure compliance, the detailed scope of work should be created at the front end of the solicitation development process for staff participants to review rather than further development prior to negotiations.

Improvement Metric Increased quality of proposals, consistency in vendor submittals and minimize negotiation time.


There is a lack of defined benchmarks as to when steps in the RFP process occur and need to be completed by various staff participants. Although there are few tools in place that designate certain milestones and monitor the process, there to needs to be a better system which helps the staff participants and the client agency know the status of the RFP solicitation.



Define tasks required for each step in the process and responsible staff.

Create an automated system that includes triggers when steps in the process should occur and notify responsible parties of the need to respond. Also, create alerts that will be sent after a designated time period has surpassed for the work to be completed and make visible for all parties to view to know the current status and responsible staff. In doing so, this would create shared accountability among all those involved.

Improvement Metric Increased quality and consistency in the RFP implementation process.


Proposed specifications for a project may be restrictive, limiting and/or incomplete. Therefore, sometimes it is advantageous to gain insight and practical advice from the vendor community regarding the specifications.



On a case-by-case basis, post the draft RFP for industry review before finalizing. (Pre-proposal posting not Pre-submittal)

Improvement Metric Achieve better quality on scope of work and avoid potential protest.


Lack of RFP process training at client agency level, specifically for new project managers.


Develop a client agency guide for RFP project management.

In addition to the current Purchasing RFP tools and training opportunities,

May 2014 Page 12

Purchasing Division

Strategy/Tool Improvement (i.e. Script for Success) develop additional training that includes the “big picture” of the process. Create webinars to be offered on an ongoing basis.

Improvement Metric Increased quality and consistency in the RFP implementation process.


There is lack of information continuity for “sunshined” RFP-related meetings.



Link the folders in the Repository (currently on broward.org) to the Sunshine Negotiation meetings for easy access for all to view.

Improvement Metric Increased communication on the status of the RFP process.


Currently, contract negotiation meetings take 20-130 days. A contributing factor to this timeframe is that there is no benchmark defined to limit the time negotiations may take.



Establish a benchmark that negotiation meetings should take no longer than 45 days.

Improvement Metric Eliminating 85 days in Phase 7 of the process, minimizing the timeframe for negotiations from 20-130 days down to 20-45 days.


Client agencies have a need to receive consistent and prompt guidance and advice from the Purchasing Agents.


Process-Oriented Improve.

Designate a Purchasing Agent for each department. This does not mean adding new staff but reassessing how Purchasing Agents are currently assigned (Units).

Improvement Metric By working more closely with the client agency, the Purchasing Agent will have a greater understanding of the customer’s business needs and easily understand their industry language.

May 2014 Page 13

Purchasing Division

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL

Area of Improvement #18 There is no set time standard for the approval of the OESBD goal which can delay the advertisement of the RFP.


Process-Oriented Improve.

Require OESBD to define a standard number of days, from the time OESBD has receipt of the scope of services from the using agency, for which agencies can expect to receive approval/non-approval on the goal.

Improvement Metric Established turnaround time standard based on “X” days defined by OESBD above


Currently, the EC chair is a senior manager from the client agency familiar with the work of the project manager requesting the RFP. Although familiar with the scope of services needed, some EC chairs are not familiar with RFP process including the Evaluation Committee procedures. Additional, despite scripts provided to the Chair, some chairs do not follow the script.



In order to ensure consistency with the process, designate a purchasing representative to be the EC chair, to facilitate the process and be a non-voting member. Plan for time to brief the Purchasing Agent on the RFP content before starting the process.

Improvement Metric Assures consistently run EC meetings by procurement professionals familiar with the solicitation process helping to minimize procedural issues resulting in protests and delays. Allows for senior manager to provide more detailed information and answer committee members’ questions as a participating committee member versus chair. Contributes to a quality selection of best vendor.


County Administration has specified steps and protocols that must be followed in order to have an Agenda item approved which creates delays that may not be in the best interest of the County when there is a possibility of losing federal or state funds for the project.



Utilize a “fast pass” process where that the County Administrator may waive the steps in Agenda Quick (software tracking tool). This “fast pass” may apply to the RFP posting and ranking.

Improvement Metric Identify the amount of federal and state funds not used by the client agencies in the past two years due to the County’s lengthy RFP process.

May 2014 Page 14

Purchasing Division

BOARD APPROVAL

Area of Improvement

#21

The Procurement Code requires the Board to approve RFP Final Evaluation Committee Rankings and Contract Awards valued in excess of $250,000. However, the Code is silent as to the approval of solicitations. As a matter of routine, RFPs valued in excess of $250,000 have obtained Board approval.

Suggested Solution for Should Be

Process

Approval Modification

Authorize the County Administrator to approve all RFP solicitation with “Notes to the Board” informing them of advertised RFP solicitations. If a Board member has an interest or concern that needs to be addressed, the issue can be address by making changes to the solicitation via an addendum.

Improvement Metric Eliminating 21 – 31 days in Phase 2 of the process.

Area of Improvement

#22

Currently, Board approval is required for RFP Rankings in excess of $250,000 and County Administrator’s approval is required for RFP Rankings less than $250,000. This Board approval currently takes a maximum of 21 -31 days in the process, with more than 95% of all recommended RFP Rankings approved as recommended. Ultimately, for the less than 5% of Rankings that were not approved, after review and re-ranking, the initially recommended rankings were subsequently validated/ratified.


Process


Require Board approval of RFP Rankings for procurements valued at $1,000,000 or more and authorize the County Administrator to approve RFP Rankings for procurements valued at less than $1,000,000. This delegation of authority would require a Procurement Code revision.

This dollar limit is based on reviewing data from the past two years of awarded RFPs; with approximately 50% of awarded contracts below this threshold and 50% above.

Improvement Metric For the RFP Rankings valued at less than $1,000,000, a savings of 21 – 31 days will be recognized in Phase 6 of the process.

Area of Improvement

#23

Unlike an RLI process, a majority of the non-CCNA RFPs require vendors to provide detailed deliverables and costs. Once the vendor is selected by the approving authority, there appears to be no need to get a second approval for contract execution for the non-CCNA RFP services since the costs have been confirmed in the ranking approval unless there is a negotiated provision which materially changes the County’s standard terms requiring approval.

May 2014 Page 15

Purchasing Division


Process


Ranking approval and contract execution should be authorized by the same person(s) at the same time. Whether it is the Board, County Administrator, or Purchasing Director who authorizes the final vendor selection, this approval would also direct the responsible parties to follow through with contract execution unless there is a negotiated provision which materially changes the County’s standard terms requiring approval.

Improvement Metric Eliminating a minimum of 25 days in Phase 7 of the process.

Area of Improvement

#24

If a vendor believes the Proposed Recommendation of Ranking is unfair, incorrect, or if there is significant new information that should be taken into consideration, the Procurement Code allows a vendor to file an Objection prior to the final ranking being posted. This process provides a disappointed vendor an opportunity to object to the RFP process at no cost to the vendor and often causes delays in the process requiring the reconvening of the Evaluation Committee. This right to object is in addition to the vendor’s right to file both a solicitation protest and a ranking protest.


Process


Eliminate the “Objection” process in the Procurement Code. The vendor will still have two other opportunities to file a protest (solicitation and ranking). In most instances, the objections are without merit and denied. Even with this additional free challenge opportunity, most objecting vendors still typically proceed in filing a protest based upon the same arguments.

Improvement Metric Eliminating 5-15 days in Phase 6 of the process by not having to respond to the Objection letter and not having to reconvene the Evaluation Committee.

Area of Improvement

#25

The Procurement Code specifically provides for a two-step contracting process whereby the vendors are solicited through an RLI and only those vendors prequalified are allowed to either bid pursuant to an Invitation to Bid or propose pursuant to a Request for Proposal. The Code indicates that this process may be used for construction projects but is silent as to its usage for non-construction projects.


Process


Consider a two-step contracting process for non-construction projects in order to have flexibility in the RFP process when there is a need to prequalify firms in non-construction projects.

Improvement Metric Increases the opportunity to select the most cost efficient qualified vendor.

May 2014 Page 16

Purchasing Division

Area of Improvement

See Area of Improvement #6 (Page 8 of this report) under Purchasing Director Approval; Two related suggested solutions have been combined, one of which requires Board Approval


Process


See Area of Improvement #6 under Purchasing Director Approval

To expedite the appeal process, the Procurement Code should limit protestor’s ability to seek discovery within 20 days of the filing of the appeal and require a hearing to take place within the next 20 days after discovery completion.

Improvement Metric See Area of Improvement #6

May 2014 Page 17

Purchasing Division

RFP

AS-IS PROCESS MAPStrongly

agree 37%

Somewhat agree 35%

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I RECEIVE HONEST AND SPECIFIC FEEDBACK

14%

N/A

2%

12%

May 2014

Purchasing Division

broward county government purchasing division rfp...broward county government purchasing division...

Documents