Category Archives: RFX

Tips on OJEU Notice Drafting for EU Public Procurement Bodies

In the EU, if you are a Public Procurement body, then, for procurements over the relevant EU threshold, you have to issue an OJEU notice, which will be placed in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This notice, which informs the public on the progress of an official competitive procurement, typically takes the form of a Prior Information Notice (PIN), Contract Notice, Contract Award Notice, or a Cancellation Notice. Each notice must meet certain requirements in addition to meeting the needs of the organization. The OGC site provides suggested content for the Contract Notice, as well as a fitness for purpose checklist, but not much advice on actual drafting.

A recent article over on SupplyManagement.com provides some good pointers on “how to draft a clear, concise notice that will leave no room for challenges” that anyone involved in EU public procurement should at least scan as challenges can significantly delay projects while costing a considerable amount of public dollars.

Some of the good pieces of advice it contains include:

  • if the length or scope of the contract may be extended during award, say so specifically in the notice (as this can be a grounds for all participants to challenge an award),
  • use clear language — SI agrees with Dick Locke (who has an entire state on his side), who did some blogging on international contracting, and recommends language that can be clearly understood by a high school student,
  • shortlisting must be specified as this is another basis for bidders to challenge an award,
  • make sure the contact person can be reached and, finally,
  • specify a realistic timeframe. If you take too long, it opens up the opportunity for legal challenges from suppliers who didn’t even bid because they might have had they known the process was going to take longer.

To Maximize Value, Don’t Overlook Tail Spend

A recent article in the Sourcing Interests Group Newsletter on “understanding tail-spend management” noted that while ROI for tail spend categories will generally be lower than for core categories, those companies that keep their eye on the efficiency/effectiveness equation and approach tail-spend intelligently can still find significant savings that make the effort worth while. So how does an organization properly approach tail spend, which:

  • rarely includes direct materials
  • contains a disproportionately high percentage of spend from the furthest-flung subsidiaries
  • contains suppliers that no one in procurement has heard of
  • contains large percentages of non-compliance and maverick spend

Intelligently. And iteratively. Data must constantly be reviewed in the light of changing business requirements to determine the best course of action using the following process:

  1. Spend Analysis
    Focus in on the tail-spend data and figure out what is being bought, from whom, where, and for how much compared to market value.
  2. Filtering
    Focus on commodities that can be reclassified into a category that will have enough spend to be worthwhile.
  3. Sourcing Strategy
    Once the category with the biggest opportunity has been identified, determine the right sourcing approach. If a sourcing project is the right approach, accelerate it with standardized templates, RFX, and/or auctions.
  4. Spot Buy
    If the right strategy is to spot-buy in a weak market, then aggregate demand across the organization and spot-buy through e-RFX or automated auctions.
  5. P2P
    And, regardless of the right sourcing strategy, drive as much spend onto technology platforms, like P-cards, so that it can be tracked and analyzed.

And, most importantly,

  • use procurement technology
  • simplify processes and increase controls
  • establish resources and manage performance

For Successful e-Sourcing, Put the Supplier First

An article in a recent SIG Newsletter on “eSourcing from the Supplier’s Perspective: Improving Bid Submissions and Event Outcomes”, that was contributed by Denali (who deliver) made a couple of very good points if you want a successful eSourcing event. These points can be succinctly summarized as “design the event from the suppliers’ perspective”. If it doesn’t work for the supplier, it isn’t going to work for you.

As the article states, while many benefits are usually touted to the supplier to get their participation in an eSourcing event, at best, the supplier typically only realizes two benefits: fair(er) competition and an easy(ier) quote process. As a result, the supplier gets discouraged by the whole process and, if the supplier does not win a (significant) award, the supplier is unlikely to participate in future events.

Basically, you have to avoid “the reality chain” that is repeated over and over again as more and more companies hop on the eSourcing bandwagon unprepared for the journey ahead. In “the reality chain”

  1. Supplier begins with little or no knowledge
  2. Supplier reaches out, but receives no guidance on requirements or evaluation criteria
  3. Supplier submits a bid that does not meet the buyer’s need
  4. Supplier receives no feedback as to why
  5. Supplier is discouraged

As a result, not only is the buyer’s event only moderately successful at best, but the buyer’s potential supply base for future eSourcing events has shrunk. However, if the buyer had considered what suppliers want and supplied:

  • detailed RFX requirements
  • post-bid feedback
  • well thought-out RFX
  • more stakeholder communication
  • opportunity to provide alternative solutions
  • evaluation criteria

Even if the supplier lost, the supplier would be encouraged by the process (since the supplier would know why the lost and what they need to improve next time) and the buyer would not only have a successful event, but lay the foundation for successful events for years to come. In other words, if the buyer designs the event from the suppliers’ perspective, success is much more likely.

For more details on how to achieve the level of success required, check out “eSourcing from the Supplier’s Perspective: Improving Bid Submissions and Event Outcomes”.

Next Generation Sourcing

As stated in yesterday’s post, for Sourcing to continue to have an impact in a modern Supply Management organization, it needs to be taken to the next level. And I’m not just echoing the statements of The Altimeter Group, AMR, CAPS, Greybeard Advisors, The Mpower Group, Purchasing Practice, or my own persistent ramblings over the years (as I have been pushing for Total Value Management and Next Generation Sourcing strategies since day one). A modern supply management organization truly needs to take their sourcing practices to the next level if they are going to continue to distill value from Sourcing.

When you consider that:

  • Once you institute RFX, the manpower savings from automating bids can only be claimed once.
  • By the time an organization gets to the third auction, there are no more savings to be had as the fat from supplier margins has been squeezed out.
  • Once the allocation has been optimized across the supply base in a way that minimizes unit costs, transportation costs, (interim) storage costs, etc., re-running the optimization won’t lower costs further unless something changes — such as the identification of a new supplier, an alternate material (that is cheaper), or additional demand (that increases the economy of scale).
  • Once contract management and monitoring is put in place and no invoices are paid that are not for delivered, defect-free products, at contracted rates, there is no more on-contract leakage to be stopped.
  • Once controls are put in place to stop off-contract purchases that should be on-contract (through integration of the e-Procurement system with the Contract Management system), there is no more off-contract leakage to be stopped.
  • And once spend analysis has identified all the opportunities, the savings won’t actually materialize until something is done about them. This something cannot be appropriately identified unless the appropriate information is available to the knowledge worker.

As a result, in order for a mature Supply Management organization to continue to extract considerable value from (e-)Sourcing, e-Sourcing needs to be taken to the next level. Whether you call it DDSN2 (Demand-Driven Supply Networks), Next Practices, or Total Value Management, the message is the same. Take your Sourcing to the next level, or risk decreasing returns.

So where does one start? Upgrade or bring in a modern e-Sourcing platform. For some organizations, who are already using a top-tier provider and who have purchased a suite license, this will just mean learning how to take full advantage of the end-to-end integrated functionality and improving processes. For others, using point solutions from top-tier providers, this will mean buying licenses to the whole suite and/or integrating the point solutions with other solutions they already have. For the market majority, this will likely mean either replacing existing first generation systems (from providers who haven’t made any updates to the base functionality in the last five years) or, in laggard cases, skipping first generation e-Sourcing systems entirely and starting off with modern systems that have better, integrated, functionality.

And then, once these systems are in place, processes are updated to capture more data and consider more information in sourcing decisions, in a process that one vendor on the leading edge likes to call High Definition Sourcing.

Since this process is the closest to what Sourcing Innovation believes is necessary for organizations that want to take their sourcing to the next level (and, in the words of CAPS, become value-focussed), this will be the subject of the next series of posts (starting next week). Stay tuned!

Information … Information … Information

Yesterday’s post discussed the lack of realistic starting points for an average organization that wants to merge onto the value focussed path and the need for information. Then the post discussed e-RFX applications and how they are not always the answer as most are not configured for collecting more than a moderate amount of data, and the information required to make the right decision might require a large amount of data to be collected.

For example, consider the information required to make the right decision in a global freight bid where the company has over 5,000 lanes across five continents that are currently being serviced, in part, by almost 500 carriers. Not only will there be a need to collect up to 1,000,000 LTL and TL bids to know what the lowest rates are, but there will be a need to collect data on capabilities (refrigerated, freezer, hazardous martial, etc.), capacities, and serviced lanes. And then, once all of the information has been collected, past performance, guaranteed service levels, (commitments to) sustainability (such as biofuels and hybrid vehicles) will have to be considered in addition to costs and on-time-delivery capabilities. And if multiple carriers are almost equal, long term viability, strategic partnerships, and/or commitment to social responsibility might also need to be considered.

All-in-all, this represents a significant amount of data that needs to be collected, analyzed, and distilled into useful information — data that is not even going to be collected if a firm is still using a first-generation e-Sourcing platform. This is because:

  1. Traditional RFX tools, which are now a commodity (as every provider and their dog has one — trust me), are not built to collect that much information.
  2. Most of the RFX tools that can handle that much information, typically by way of Excel import and export, are not designed with supplier usability in mind. No supplier is going to quote 5,000 lanes at multiple LTL and FTL levels if they only service 3,000 and 2,000 can be broken into 20 cross-regional groups where each lane in the group is priced the same by mile.
  3. Of the few tools that allow for generic pricing and (typically) single-dimensional overrides, most won’t designed with the ability to easily design multiple levels of overrides and the OLAP-like navigation that’s really need to quickly zoom in on the relevant data items (which need to be viewed or altered).
  4. And while most of the better RFX tools allow a user to define as many RFIs, RFPs, and RFQs as the user desires, these generally have to be crammed into rigid workflows that may or may not fit the scenario at hand.
  5. Plus, while most of the tools can push data out into an auction or a SIM tool (that is the foundation for SPM and/or SRM), most don’t allow data to be pulled back in, since the first generation e-Sourcing model was a linear RFX -> Auction -> Decision Optimization -> Award -> Contract Management -> SPM flow.

And then, once you get past all that, you still have to analyze the data to distill the information required to make a good award decision. Because even the best strategic sourcing decision optimization on the market will fail if it’s not provided with the right data AND the right constraints (or, depending on your choice of terminology, rules). The right constraints can only derived by a knowledge individual that has the right information at her disposal.

So how do get the right information? You take your sourcing to the next level. So what does this Next Generation Sourcing look like? Stay Tuned.