Hope Software: Responding to an RFP

Jack Rostin, Vice-President of Development for Hope Software looked at a 59-page RFP and shook his head. Hope Software was one of the leaders in commercial software for managing factories. Judy Mikulski, Sales VP, had just brought him the RFP. Hope had 2 weeks to respond.

"Let me get this straight," Rostin said, "The government has worked with a consulting firm for several months analyzing this defense factory. Because the factory makes military gear and we don't have security clearances, all we know about the situation is that they assemble and test something very complicated and very expensive. We have this 59-page RFP that includes over 200 questions about our system, which they have never seen or used. The questions ask us to rate on scale from 1 to 5 whether we have specific features they need, such as planning calculations that can cover a 6 month time horizon and a component numbering scheme that permits 15-digit part numbers. They need our response fast because they need to have a system running in 10 months. The instructions say they can sue us if we misrepresent the system.

"Meanwhile, we have a major new release of our software coming out in 3 months. Our customers have complained for 2 years about our data collection system, and the new version is just about ready. We need 2 months to test it and are working overtime to get new features into the release. Who is going to analyze all of these questions? Who is going to swear that our answers even make sense when we haven't seen their plant? I can truthfully say that our variable time horizons can support 10 years of plans if they want. What I can't say is whether our system will really solve their problem."

Mikulski had heard this story with the last RFP. Rostin had convinced system experts to spend 4 days working on it. Hope had received a huge contract and it seemed likely that the customer would be pleased, even though the users had not understood exactly what they were requesting. Mikulski wanted to convince Rostin to try for a repeat performance. She was sure Hope's system was the best commercially available software for the defense factory's requirements and thought Hope could back out without a lawsuit if the system didn't fit. She knew Rostin was a cautious person and would not lie in the numerical responses.

Questions:

1. Analyze this situation using ideas about the traditional system life cycle and any of the three alternative life cycles that are pertinent.

2. Mikulski wants Rostin to produce answers to 200 questions within 2 weeks. Are there any ethical, legal, or practical problems with what she wants?

3. What should Rostin and Mikulski do? Why should they or should they not bid on this contract?

4. Explain why you do or do not believe it was unethical for the consulting firm to take the contract to write the RFP.

Back to Useful Cases from Previous Editions

Main Page About the Book Student Resources Instructor Resources Contact Us