4.4Conducting procurements & supplier management

Once the contract type is decided, the PM faces the concrete work of "which vendor to select" and the ongoing management that follows contract signing. Selecting on price alone risks choosing a vendor with weak technical capability or track record, while selecting on technical capability alone risks a budget overrun. This section covers the full flow from information-gathering through the request for proposals, weighted-evaluation selection, and post-contract change and claims handling, from the standpoint of judgment that does not lean on a single evaluation axis.

4.4.1Information-gathering and proposal solicitation via RFI and RFP

• RFI (Request for Information) is an information-gathering document issued before ordering, used to understand what suppliers, technologies, and products exist in the market. It does not ask for pricing or a concrete proposal—it is a preliminary information-gathering step used to narrow candidates and sharpen requirement definition. RFP (Request for Proposal) is a formal document, issued once requirements are firm, requesting submission of a concrete proposal (technical approach, staffing, pricing, and so on); RFP responses become the basis for actual selection and contract negotiation.
• Issuing an RFP suddenly while requirements are still vague forces suppliers to submit only low-precision proposals, making comparative evaluation difficult. The standard practice is a staged approach: RFI at an early stage when market options and technology trends are still unclear, and RFP once requirements are firm. An RFQ (Request for Quotation) is used for pricing on standard, off-the-shelf items and differs in nature from an RFP for a complex custom-development engagement.

4.4.2Weighted-evaluation supplier selection

• Supplier selection criteria form a framework for evaluating candidates on multiple dimensions—not just price, but also technical capability, track record (experience on similar engagements), staffing (team skill/continuity), financial soundness, and support structure. Under weighted scoring (weighted evaluation), each criterion is assigned a weight reflecting the project's priorities, and the candidate with the highest total score is selected. The weight allocation itself is adjusted to the nature of the engagement—weighting technical capability more heavily for highly complex or difficult work, and weighting price more heavily for standardized, routine work.
• The lowest-price-bid method, which mechanically selects the cheapest candidate, risks overlooking later trouble costs from insufficient technical capability or track record on complex, high-risk engagements. Conversely, weighting technical capability alone to an extreme can invite budget overrun or overengineering (over-specification). Weighted evaluation is a means of balancing multiple evaluation axes, and avoiding a lean toward a single metric is what determines the quality of the selection.

Suppose a PM is responsible for vendor selection on a project to overhaul a core system—technically difficult, with severe business impact if it fails. Three vendors have submitted proposals: Vendor A has the lowest price but no experience with a system overhaul of similar scale; Vendor B has a mid-range price and a strong track record on similar engagements; Vendor C has the highest price but unmatched capability with the latest technology. If the PM decides "we must stick to budget, so go with Vendor A," that is a judgment leaning on the single axis of price, and choosing an inexperienced vendor for a technically difficult core-system overhaul risks incurring costs—in the form of later rework, quality trouble, and go-live delay—that exceed the original price difference. Applying weighted evaluation correctly means first identifying the evaluation criteria (price, technical capability, track record, staffing, maintainability, and so on), then setting the weights for track record and technical capability higher, reflecting this engagement's nature (high difficulty, high risk, severe business impact). Scoring each vendor accordingly, the typical, rational conclusion for this kind of engagement is not the cheapest Vendor A, but Vendor B—with a strong track record and a moderate price—scoring highest overall. Vendor C's cutting-edge technical capability looks attractive, but for an engagement like a core-system overhaul where stability and track record matter most, more advanced technology than necessary can itself become an overengineering risk (difficulty securing maintenance staff, and failure risk from technology that is not yet battle-tested). Judgment continues even after the contract is signed. If scope changes arise mid-development, they must go through a formal change management process (change request -> impact assessment -> agreed contract amendment); proceeding on a verbal agreement instead becomes a seed for a later claim (a dispute arising from differing interpretations of the contract). Under contract administration, the PM's ongoing role is to continuously reconcile progress, deliverables, and payment against the contract terms, detecting any sign of deviation early.

4.4.3Section summary

• RFI is preliminary information-gathering; RFP is a formal proposal request issued once requirements are firm—use them in stages
• Weighted evaluation adjusts criterion weights to the engagement's nature (difficulty, risk, business impact), selecting without leaning on a single axis
• A post-contract scope change must go through formal change management—a verbal agreement becomes a seed for a later claim