{"id":926,"date":"2017-09-12T13:27:35","date_gmt":"2017-09-12T17:27:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.ncsu.edu\/intranet\/era\/?p=926"},"modified":"2017-09-12T13:27:35","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T17:27:35","slug":"era-update-rfp-release-vendor-selection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.ncsu.edu\/era\/era-update-rfp-release-vendor-selection\/","title":{"rendered":"eRA Update: From RFP Release to Vendor Selection"},"content":{"rendered":"

Contributed by: Matt Simpson<\/em><\/p>\n

The eRA vendor demonstrations have ended and the implementation stage of the project is fast approaching. Let\u2019s take this opportunity to quickly look back at how we got to where we are now in the eRA <\/span>timeline<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

After the RFP was released in May, vendors were given an opportunity to reply and six were deemed \u201cresponsive\u201d by NC State\u2019s Purchasing Department, according to Sherrie Settle, an eRA steering team liaison and the director of Sponsored Programs. In other words, six vendors met the critical requirements of the RFP. <\/span><\/p>\n

These vendors were given the opportunity to provide virtual demonstrations for the eRA Steering Team. Based on their demos and the RFP responses provided, the Steering Team selected the three strongest vendors and invited them to campus for in-person demos. <\/span><\/p>\n

The RFP contained more than 200 requirements \u2014 which were developed according to the multifaceted needs of all the different eRA stakeholder groups \u2014 and vendors were evaluated based on, among other factors, their ability to satisfy those requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

Each member of the eRA Steering Team, a committee made up of representatives from across campus who understand their constituents\u2019 and stakeholders\u2019 needs throughout the lifecycle of a sponsored research project, was given the opportunity to rate how well he or she thought the vendors met each requirement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Four criteria accounted for the total weighted score for each vendor: ability to satisfy requirements (65%), cost (20%), vendor qualifications and experience (10%), and vendor\u2019s proposed implementation plan (5%). <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re also evaluating the implementation process each vendor will bring to the table\u2026 how thoroughly and how time-effectively their products can be implemented,\u201d said Director of Contracts and Grants Justo Torres, who is also a steering team liaison. \u201cIt\u2019s not just a matter of picking the best product in isolation of performance.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

The on-campus demos that took place from Aug. 23 to Sept. 7 allowed the steering committee and, more importantly, stakeholders from all parts of campus to see the vendors\u2019 systems live in action, and provide their feedback. <\/span><\/p>\n

Settle said what we are asking stakeholders to do is more \u201ccustomized to their particular use\u201d than simply evaluating the product\u2019s ability to meet requirements. She said the Steering Team wants to know how the product will meet different stakeholders\u2019 needs in the specific areas in which they work.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEvery perspective is important,\u201d Settle said. \u201cWe wanted to give all of the campus users the opportunity to evaluate the product and help inform our decision.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, Settle wanted to use this opportunity to remind folks across campus that the window for feedback on the vendor demos is still open, but that it will soon be closing. More feedback will result in a more informed decision being made, so please take the time to voice your opinion about the vendor demos before it\u2019s too late.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can use the links below to find each vendor\u2019s list of recorded demos and a link to their feedback form. <\/span><\/p>\n