Tender Evaluation Case Study
This case study evaluates the approach used in the evaluation of tender submissions. The application is used successfully for large high technology procurements. It is basically a two part process or two phase system. In Phase I, the goal is to establish a risk baseline that individual tender responses can be compared to. Phase 2 builds on Phase 1 where the goal is to compare the individual tender’s approach to the potential effects of risk on the project. The two phase process is a systematic process which helps to ensure the greatest attention and effort is focused on the high risk areas for the project.
1. Which case study does a better job ...view middle of the document...
Any risk omitted from Phase I has the same probability of being identified in Phase II. The assumption of this response is that the project elements process will be comprehensive at each Phase. If Phase II depends on risk identification from Phase I, then Phase I would do a better job at identifying risks (Cooper, Grey, Raymond, & Walker, 2005).
2. Which case study does a better job at quantifying risks? Explain why.
Both case studies use the same process, so they are equally effective. Risk quantification is applied equally in both Phase I and Phase II. The project team evaluates the likelihood and impact for each identified risk to create a risk factor. This process enables a comparison between each risk. Effective quantification applied in Phase I provides an understanding of project risks which are then used for evaluation in Phase II. With the equal probability of identifying risks, there is also an equal probability of quantifying risk factors.
3. Which case did you find easier to follow with regards to the risk assessment? Explain why.
Phase I was slightly easier to follow with regards to the risk identification and evaluation. It is the first step in the process, so all methods seemed easy to apply. Phase II took a little more time to determine if the methods applied to Phase I were to be equally applied to Phase II, but once determined, application of the method was the same.
4. Which had the more compelling assessment of risk? Explain why.
Probability aside, Phase I had a more compelling assessment of risk. The brainstorming session to identify risk would seem to be more comprehensive in Phase I. The assumption is that the project team would not really do a thorough second pass for Phase II risk identification. By the time the process begins for Phase II, the assumption that all risk was previously identified would more or less turn the input from Phase I into a checklist. While...