This free survey is powered by QUESTIONPRO.COM

Evaluation - CMS

RFP - 12-06-001 CONTENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTION (CMS)
0%
Exit Survey »
 
 
Hello:

You have been chosen as an evaluator of regarding:

RFP 12-06-001

CONTENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTION


The evaluation of this RFP will consist of 3 ROUNDS (parts):

1) An initial independent evaluation of the proposals
2) A secondary evaluation following a group discussion on various proposal points
3) A third evaluation following a discussion with key vendors

Your evaluation and responses will be captured here so that we can keep an accurate track of the process.

You should have received either hardcopy or electronic copy of the RFPs for your review. If you do NOT have these, please contact Larry Millholland @ [email protected]

Thank you for your support in this process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 317-916-7921.
 
 
 
* You are here to complete what step?
 
ROUND 1 - Initial independent evaluation
 
ROUND 2 - Re scoring after group discussion
 
ROUND 3 - Re scoring after vendor discussions
 
 
ROUND 1 - EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 1 - EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 1 - Initial independent evaluation comments for EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP):
   
 
 
ROUND 1 - TERMINAL FOUR
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 1 - TERMINAL FOUR
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 1 - Initial independent evaluation comments for TERMINAL FOUR:
   
 
 
ROUND 1 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 1 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 1 - Initial independent evaluation comments for RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY):
   
 
 
 
* ROUND 2 - After the group discussion, has your opinion changed? Do you wish to re-score the vendors?
 
YES - I want to re-score the vendors
 
NO - I want the 2nd evaluation to mirror my initial scores
 
 
 
ROUND 2 EVALUATION - After Group Discussion
 
 
ROUND 2 - EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 2 - EVC (Academica Group)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 2 - Evaluation comments for EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP):
   
 
 
ROUND 2 - TERMINAL FOUR
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 2 - TERMINAL FOUR
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 2 - Evaluation comments for TERMINAL FOUR:
   
 
 
ROUND 2 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 2 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 2 - Evaluation comments for RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY):
   
 
 
 
* ROUND 3 - After the vendor Interviews/discussion, has your opinion changed? Do you wish to re-score the vendors?
 
YES - I want to re-score the vendors
 
NO - I want the 3rd evaluation to mirror my 2nd evaluation scores
 
 
 
ROUND 3 EVALUATION - After Vendor Discussion/Interview
 
 
ROUND 3 - EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 3 - EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 3 - Evaluation comments for EVC (ACADEMICA GROUP):
   
 
 
ROUND 3 - TERMINAL FOUR
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 3 - TERMINAL FOUR
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 3 - Evaluation comments for TERMINAL FOUR:
   
 
 
ROUND 3 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
PoorExcellent
* Functionality / Ease of use
-
* User Interface / Workflow /
-
* Asset / Content / Template Management / Training & Support
-
* Technical Specifications / Security
-
* Scalability / Extensibility
-
 
 
ROUND 3 - RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY)
Poor ValueExcellent Value
* Cost of Solution
-
* Management Assessment/Quality (Business & Technical Proposal)
-
* Experience & References
-
 
 
 
* ROUND 3 - Evaluation comments for RIVET LOGIC (LIFERAY):
   
 
 
 
 
* *** RANDOM CONFIDENTIAL QUESTION ***

In some evaluations, strong pre-conceived bias can develop. This can lead some evaluation members to consciously/unconsciously attempt to sway the evaluation team to their view. While group discussion, persuasion and passion are all a part of evaluations, coercion is not acceptable and it places a true neutral evaluation at risk.

Do you feel that you were coerced (or under any duress) to score a vendor in any certain way?
 
YES - I felt coerced or under duress to provide certain scores
 
NO - My scores were not influenced unfairly
 
NO - But I feel that others were coerced or under duress
 
 
 
* Which Evaluator are you?
 
Cory Beals
 
Jeff Kraft
 
Jennifer Torzewski
 
John Fribley
 
John Madden
 
Lige Hensley
 
Lisa Kitchen Butt
 
Marlene Rhoades
 
Matt Fitzwater
 
Michele Morrical
 
Michelle Hall
 
Nancy Green
 
Sandra Fouty
 
Other
 
 
Survey Software Powered by QuestionPro Survey Software