Final Report

University of Prosperity has embarked on a Project Portfolio Management (PPM) solution to better track the projects, assign resources and align strategy to the initiatives. The Source Selection Criteria has specified the standards, criteria and procedures according to which vendor proposals will be judged upon the issued Request for Proposal (RFP).

The aim is the transparent, consistent and justifiable process of evaluating vendors based on competence, compliance, and the capacity to provide a solution that is capable of addressing existing and anticipated institutional requirements.

The evaluation will be performed in accordance with four major dimensions:

1. Proven Competence- Proven skills and ability to provide the desired PPM solution.

2. Compliance -Some of this is our adherence to technical, functional, and legal requirements in the RFP.

3. Format- clarity, structure and completeness of the proposal submitted.

4. Organization – A logical structure, good presentation and submission requirements.

In this criterion, the technical skills, industry experience, and performance history of the vendor in providing PPM solutions are analysed. Certain considerations are:

· Relevant project experience in higher education or comparable complex organizations.

· Availability of skilled personnel with demonstrated qualifications in PPM software implementation.

· Evidence of successful deployment in institutions of similar size and scope.

· Post-implementation support capabilities, including training and system optimization.

Compliance will test by how much the solution provided by the vendor fulfills the RFP requirements, regulations and policies of the institutions. Criteria include:

· Completing the requirements within the RFP that are functional and technical.

· Conformance to data security and privacy regulations (e.g., FERPA, GDPR if applicable).

· Compatibility with existing University IT infrastructure and integrations.

· Accessibility compliance (e.g., WCAG 2.1 AA standards).

This measures intelligibility of the proposal, the way it is read, and how it is completed. Criteria include:

· Adherence to the RFP’s structure and formatting guidelines.

· Use of clear, concise, and unambiguous language.

· Inclusion of all requested documents, appendices, and certifications.

· Logical organization and easy navigation through sections.

Organization refers to the logical flow of the proposal content, integration of supporting evidence, and the presentation of the proposed solution in a way that facilitates evaluation. Criteria include:

· Effective use of headings, subheadings, and tables for readability.

· Coherent progression of ideas from problem statement to solution delivery.

· Inclusion of relevant visual aids (charts, diagrams, timelines) where applicable.

The evaluation will use both qualitative and quantitative measures to rank vendor proposals. The criteria are weighted to reflect institutional priorities.

1. Initial Screening

· Verify completeness of submission and compliance with mandatory RFP requirements.

· Eliminate proposals failing to meet non-negotiable criteria (e.g., deadline adherence, signed certifications).

2. Detailed Review

· Each proposal will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee against the defined criteria.

· Scores will be assigned using a standardized scoring rubric.

3. Demonstrations & Interviews

· Shortlisted vendors will present live demonstrations of their PPM solution.

· Clarification questions will be addressed during Q&A sessions.

4. Reference Checks

· Contact references provided by the vendor to validate claims of competence and performance history.

5. Final Scoring & Recommendation

· Scores from all evaluation stages will be consolidated.

· The top-ranked vendor will be recommended for contract negotiations.

The evaluation will also account for potential risks, including:

· Vendor dependency risk (over-reliance on proprietary systems).

· Implementation risk (timeline overruns, scope creep).

· Financial risk (vendor bankruptcy or acquisition).

· Technology obsolescence risk (lack of ongoing updates or innovation).

Vendors demonstrating strong risk mitigation strategies will be favored.

The Evaluation Committee will consist of representatives from:

· IT Services (technical assessment).

· Procurement Office (contract compliance).

· Academic Affairs (functional fit).

· Finance Department (cost analysis).

Final approval will be made by the University Executive Board based on the committee’s recommendation.

This Source Selection Criteria framework ensures an objective, consistent, and transparent process for evaluating vendors. By focusing on demonstrated competence, compliance, proposal quality, and organizational presentation, the University of Prosperity will select a PPM solution that supports strategic priorities, improves project delivery efficiency, and provides long-term value.

The evaluation process will be documented in full to provide an audit trail, ensuring accountability and fairness to all vendors. The chosen solution must not only meet present needs but also adapt to emerging trends in higher education project management.

Office of Federal Procurement Policy. (2020). Best Practices for Source Selection. U.S. General Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/acquisition-policy/source-selection

Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – 7th Edition. Project Management Institute.