Company X is the company to which the information systems department currently outsources system development, so it does have the advantage of knowing the company's own business and system environment well. However, presenting the RFP to Company X alone simply because it is an existing business partner comes close to a no-competition, single-source award, and the principle of competition does not operate at all. If only one proposal is collected, there is no basis for comparison to judge whether its quoted price is reasonable against the market or whether the proposed implementation method is the best one, and there is little room to negotiate price and terms. In addition, what is being built this time is a meeting room reservation system, and from the standpoint of development experience in that area Company Z may well have the edge. The stem only states that all three companies remained as candidates after the investigation, and gives no grounds whatsoever for excluding Companies Y and Z, so narrowing down to Company X alone is inappropriate.
×Incorrectイ
Company Y is a company to which the general affairs department outsourced system development in the past, but that single point is the only grounds for it. A past business record is no more than one piece of reference information in vendor selection, and it comes with the qualifiers “in the past” and “the general affairs department”, so it does not guarantee technical capability or development experience directly relevant to this reservation system. Dropping the other two companies from the candidate list on the strength of such thin material and presenting the RFP only to Company Y means voluntarily giving up the chance to compare and evaluate. In particular, it becomes impossible to draw out, in proposal form, the knowledge of Company X as the current outsourcing partner and the strength of Company Z with its experience developing a meeting room reservation system, which is a serious loss. A past track record should be handled as one of the evaluation items after the proposals are received; it is not a reason to narrow the recipients down to one company.
×Incorrectウ
Company Z has experience developing a meeting room reservation system and fits this project well, making it a strong candidate. However, the merit of having experience is something to be credited at the stage of evaluating the proposals that are submitted; it is not a reason to cut out the other companies before the RFP is even handed over. Having development experience is a separate matter from whether the price is reasonable, whether the team structure is adequate, whether the delivery deadline can be met, and whether post-launch maintenance can be entrusted to the company — and it is precisely in order to assess those points that proposals from several companies need to be compared. If the field is narrowed to Company Z alone, there is no yardstick left for measuring whether the quoted price is reasonable, and bargaining power is lost as well. The stem, too, only states that three companies remained as candidates and shows no grounds for excluding Companies X and Y, so presenting the RFP only to Company Z is inappropriate.
○エ
正解The correct answer is エ, “All of Companies X, Y, and Z”. An RFP (Request For Proposal) is a document that compiles the requirements settled in the system planning stage — the business to be realized, the functions needed, the levels of performance and quality, the budget range, the delivery deadline, and the conditions for operation and maintenance — presents them to vendors, and asks the vendors to submit proposals in response. The important point here is that an RFP is not “a document that tells one already-chosen company how things will be arranged”; it is “a document for drawing out the best proposal from several candidates and comparing them”. If the same RFP is distributed to several companies, the proposals that come back are all written under identical premises, so the evaluation axes — how each function will be implemented, the quoted price, the development team structure, the schedule, the maintenance provided after the system goes live — can be compared side by side, and the basis for the selection can be explained objectively. Conversely, if the RFP is presented to only one company, there is no point of comparison for judging whether that proposal is expensive or cheap, reasonable or excessive, and bargaining power over price and terms is lost as well. Looking at the situation in this question, Mr. B has investigated the technologies and track records of the companies that are candidates to receive the RFP, and as a result three companies — X, Y, and Z — remain as candidates. In other words, all three have passed the first-stage screen of the preliminary investigation, and at this point no reason has been given for dropping two of them and narrowing down to one. Being the current outsourcing partner, having done business in the past, and having experience with a similar system are characteristics that should be taken into account as plus points when the proposals are evaluated after they are received; they are not reasons to exclude the other companies before the RFP is even handed over. On the contrary, presenting it to all three and letting their proposals compete draws out better proposals and more favorable terms, and also secures fairness and transparency in the selection. Therefore, the parties to actually receive the RFP are all of Companies X, Y, and Z that remained as candidates, and エ is appropriate.
ここがポイント
The purpose and position of the RFP (Request For Proposal) — a document that compiles the requirements settled in the system planning stage (the target business, the functions needed, performance and quality, budget, delivery deadline, operation and maintenance conditions, and so on) and asks vendors to submit proposals. Procurement proceeds in the order request for information (RFI) → request for proposal (RFP) → receipt of proposals → evaluation and selection → contract, and the RFP plays the role of presenting identical conditions to several companies in the stage before selection.
Vendor selection is carried out by comparing several companies — present the same RFP to every company that remained as a candidate, and compare the returned proposals along shared evaluation axes such as functions, price, team structure, delivery deadline, and maintenance. This lets competition work so that better proposals and better terms can be drawn out, and it also secures the fairness and transparency needed to explain the reason for the selection objectively. Being an existing business partner, having a past track record, and having experience with a similar system are characteristics to be taken into account at the proposal evaluation stage; they are not grounds for narrowing the recipients down to a single company.