The tender analyses will be explained in this chapter. First the analysis on tender A, considered as the reference tender as it provided the most detailed questionnaire, score model and feedback, is displayed. Next the analysis on tender B and C is presented followed by the matching procedure and finally the matching results.
4.1 Analysis of tender A
As visualized in figure 7 the thesis initially focused on tender A. The structure of tender A is displayed in figure 5. The RFP consisted of a questionnaire with twelve topics. These twelve topics were divided into 48 subtopics and these were divided into 202 sub subtopics. The 1919 questions were placed in these 202 sub subtopics. The questions could be either a knockout of an (important) wish. The analysis was based on the points that a question could contribute to the total score, therefore the 43 knockout questions were left out of scope. The remaining 1876 questions were divided as 1566 important wishes and 310 wishes. An important wish question could gain twice the points a wish question could. All questions were either a closed or an open question.
Due to the RFP it was known how many points could be scored per specific question and which questions belonged to a specific subtopic. Therefore it was also known how many points could be scored per subtopic. This was verified with the provided score model. Table 15 is a preview of one topic in tender A. It shows the four subtopics (1.1.1 – 1.1.4) that belonged to the topic Algemene
functionele eisen. The third column shows how many points could be scored per subtopic, and the
fourth column calculates the percentage of the total score that a specific subtopic accounted for. For example: answering all questions in subtopic Wet en regelgeving correctly would lead to a score of 1.10 point and this accounted for 1.47% of the total score. The total score is italic, because the calculations were not done using the actual total score. The subtopics price, contract, vision and
demonstration were left out of the total score to focus on the functional aspects. Obviously these
subtopics were also left out in the calculations of the other two tenders. A total of eight topics and 44 subtopics were considered in further analysis. The points and percentages of all considered (sub) topics of tender A can be found in table 39 (Appendix I). The points and percentages are
crosschecked with hospital A.
Table 15 – Points and relative score per subtopic
4.2 Analysis of tender B
The RFP of tender B was not as nicely documented as the one of tender A and therefore not every specific question could be placed under a subtopic. However, the score model was complete and therefore it was known how many points could be scored per subtopic. Tender B consisted of a questionnaire with eleven topics. These eleven topics were divided into 53 subtopics and these were not further divided into sub subtopics. The questionnaire consisted of 1581 questions. A total of nine subtopics were left out of the total score to focus on the functional aspects, thus 44 subtopics were considered for further analysis. The points and percentages of all considered (sub) topics of tender B can be found in table 40 (Appendix J).
Subtopics of topic 1.1
(Algemene functionele eisen)
Name subtopic Points that can be
scored per subtopic
Percentage of total score
1.1.1 Wet en regelgeving 1,10 1,47%
1.1.2 Gebruiksvriendelijkheid 2,75 3,67%
1.1.3 Beschikbaarheid en performance 1,10 1,47%
4.3 Analysis of tender C
The analysis of tender C encountered the same problem as tender B as the RFP of tender C was not as nicely documented as the one of tender A. Again the score model was complete and therefore it was known how many points could be scored per subtopic. Tender C consisted of a questionnaire with eleven topics and 22 subtopics and these were not further divided into sub subtopics. The questionnaire consisted of 1956 questions. After deleting the subtopics that were out of scope a total nineteen subtopics were considered in further analysis. The points and percentages of all considered (sub) topics of tender C can be found in table 41 (Appendix K).
4.4 Match selection criteria
After the analysis of the three tenders it became clear that the selection criteria were similar, but not exactly the same as the tenders used different wording and terminology. In order to analyze how the selection criteria changed over time, one tender had to be selected as reference and the subtopics of the other two tenders had to be matched with the subtopics of the reference tender. As mentioned before tender A was chosen as the reference tender.
The following example explains what happened during the matching procedure. It consists of three tenders just like in the real situation: tender T1, T2, and T3 which have respectively five, four, and three subtopics, see table 16, table 17, and table 18. These tables work the same as the tables of the real tenders. The first column contains the subtopics, the second column shows how many actual points could be scored per subtopic, and the third column calculates the percentage of the total score that a specific subtopic accounted for. In the example tender T1 is the reference tender (similar to tender A).
In order to simplify the example let’s assume a tender is required to buy a bicycle. The bicycle has the following components:
wheels consisting of tubes and spokes;
frame;
brakes;
material;
and a color.
The three tenders sometimes use slightly differed wording and terminology as listed in table 16, table 17, and table 18 just like in the real situation.
For matching the selection criteria of tender T2 and T3 with the selection criteria of reference tender T1 the explained two round Delphi method (Skulmoski et al., 2007) is used. The result of this
matching is visualized in table 19 and table 20.
The first column of table 20 shows the selection criteria (subtopics) of tender T2 and the second column which selection criteria of reference tender T1 are matched with that specific selection criterion of tender T2. For instance: subtopic Material of tender T2 is matched with subtopics Frame (for 75%) and Spokes (for 25%) of reference tender T1.
In other words: 75% of the questions in subtopic Material relates with the questions in subtopic
Frame and 25% of the questions in subtopic Material relates with the questions in subtopic Spokes.
Another example: subtopic Wheels is matched with subtopics Tubes (for 5%), Color (for 90%), and
Spokes (for 5%). In other words: 5% of the questions in subtopic Wheels relates with the questions in
subtopic Tubes, 90% relates with the questions in subtopic Color, and 5% relates with the questions in subtopic Spokes. Apparently tender T3 wants a special color for his/her wheels.
The same method was used in the real scenario, only on a much larger scale. The matching of the tender B (44 subtopics) with the reference tender A (44 subtopics) is visualized in table 42 (Appendix L). The matching of the tender C (19 subtopics) with the reference tender A is visualized in table 43 (Appendix M). All subtopics were matched 100% to other subtopics, therefore no problems occurred.
Subtopic Name subtopic Points that can be scored per subtopic
Percentage of total score T1.1 Tubes 45 30,0% T1.2 Frame 30 20,0% T1.3 Brakes 25 16,7% T1.4 Color 35 23,3% T1.5 Spokes 15 10,0%
Subtopic Name subtopic Points that can be scored per subtopic
Percentage of total score T2.1 Material 15 15,0% T2.2 Brakes 30 30,0% T2.3 Wheels 20 20,0% T2.4 Color 35 35,0%
Subtopic Name subtopic Points that can be scored per subtopic
Percentage of total score T3.1 Wheels 60 50,0% T3.2 Frame 35 29,2% T3.3 Brakes 25 20,8% Tender T2 Tender T1
Material Frame 75% Spokes 25% Brakes Brakes 100%
Wheels Tubes 80% Spokes 20% Color Color 100%
Tender T3 Tender T1
Wheels Tubes 5% Color 90% Spokes 5% Frame Frame 50% Color 50%
Brakes Brakes 100%
Table 16 – Starting information tender T1
Table 17 – Starting information tender T2
Table 18 – Starting information tender T3
Table 20 – Matching of tender T3 with tender T1 Table 19 – Matching of tender T2 with tender T1
4.5 Matching results
The stated example in 4.4 is also used to explain the matching results. In order to analyze how the selection criteria change over time the tenders has to be compared. For this comparison another step is made which is visualized in table 21 and table 22.
The matching of tender T2 with tender T1 is done in table 20 where subtopic Material is matched with subtopic Frame (for 75%) and Spokes (for 25%). As stated in table 17, subtopic Material accounts for 15% of the total score in tender T2. The goal is to convert the subtopics of tender T2 into the subtopics of tender T1. Therefore the 15% that subtopic Material account for in tender T2 has to be allocated to the subtopics it is matched to, namely subtopic Frame and Spokes. The calculations that follows are for subtopic Frame: 15% X 75% = 11.25% and for subtopic Spoke: 15% X 25% = 3.75%.
The same calculations are done for every subtopic of tender T2 and T3. These values are placed under the correct subtopic of tender T1, because it is possible that multiple subtopics of tender T2 of tender T3 are matched with the same subtopic of tender T1. In the example both subtopics Material and Wheels of tender T2 are matched with subtopic Spokes.
In the end all percentages that belong to a specific subtopic of tender T1 are added for the final results. For tender T2 the results are: Tubes accounts for 16% of the total score, Frame for 11.25%,
Brakes for 30%, Color for 35%, and Spokes for 7.75%. The same procedure is performed for tender T3
and this provides the end result in table 23. In this table the first column shows the subtopics of the reference tender T1. The second, third, and fourth column show the percentage that a specific subtopic accounts for of the total score in a specific tender. For example: subtopic Tubes accounts for 30% of the total score in tender T1, for 16% in tender T2, and for 2.5% in tender T3.
Table 23 – End result example
The same procedure was used in the real scenario, only on a much larger scale. The result of the matching of tender B with as reference tender A is visualized in table 44 (Appendix N). The result of the matching of tender C with as reference tender A is visualized in table 45 (Appendix O). A preview of the tables in the appendices is visualized in table 24. The first column states the subtopic numbers of tender C (Z.1.1, Z.1.2, etc.) and the first row shows some of the subtopic numbers of tender A (1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.). In the middle are the allocated percentages of a specific subtopic listed and the last row show the results.
The end result of the matching is shown in table 28 which shows that the selection criteria differed among the three tenders.
T2 / T1 Tubes Frame Brakes Color Spokes Material 0,00% 11,25% 0,00% 0,00% 3,75%
Brakes 0,00% 0,00% 30,00% 0,00% 0,00%
Wheels 16,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 4,00% Color 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 35,00% 0,00%
16,00% 11,25% 30,00% 35,00% 7,75%
T3 / T1 Tubes Frame Brakes Color Spokes
Wheels 2,50% 0,00% 0,00% 45,00% 2,50%
Frame 0,00% 14,58% 0,00% 14,58% 0,00%
Brakes 0,00% 0,00% 20,83% 0,00% 0,00%
2,50% 14,58% 20,83% 59,58% 2,50%
Subtopic
Tender T1 Tender T2 Tender T3
Tubes 30,00% 16,00% 2,50% Frame 20,00% 11,25% 14,58% Brakes 16,67% 30,00% 20,83% Color 23,33% 35,00% 59,58% Spokes 10,00% 7,75% 2,50% Data
Table 24 – Preview result matching tender C with tender A C / A 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.2.9 1.2.10 Z.1.1 9,30% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.1.2 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.1 0,00% 0,47% 0,00% 0,00% 0,47% 0,47% 0,00% 0,00% 0,47% 0,00% 0,47% 0,00% 0,00% 0,47% Z.2.2 0,00% 0,70% 0,70% 0,93% 0,47% 0,00% 0,00% 0,47% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.3 0,00% 0,23% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,70% 0,23% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.4 0,00% 0,70% 0,00% 0,23% 1,16% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,16% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,35% 0,00% Z.2.5 0,00% 0,35% 0,00% 0,00% 0,93% 2,33% 0,00% 0,35% 0,35% 0,00% 0,35% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.6 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,93% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 3,26% Z.2.7 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.8 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.9 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 4,65% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.10 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,40% 0,00% 0,00% Z.2.11 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 4,65% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Y.1 0,00% 0,00% 0,29% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Y.2 0,29% 0,00% 0,29% 0,58% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,45% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Y.3 0,48% 0,00% 0,48% 0,97% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,48% 0,00% 0,00% 0,48% X.1 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% X.2 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% X.3 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100,00% 10,08% 2,44% 1,76% 2,71% 7,67% 2,79% 0,70% 1,05% 4,36% 4,65% 1,30% 1,40% 0,35% 4,21%