1. Is there anything the team should have done when they received only three proposals by June 30? The team should have advertised an extension of the deadline for proposals another 30 days, and notified those companies that did submit proposals that the deadline was extended and should they wish to modify their proposals, they could.
2. Should the team consider the proposal from Asia General Contractors? Why or why not?
Yes, they should. Had they extended their deadline, Asia General Contractors would have made the deadline. But aside from that, being based in China, Asia General Contractors has local knowledge of the environment, laws, culture, language, labor and general costs of doing business in that area of the world.
3. After sharing their individual comments at the start of the July 15 meeting, how should the team proceed with the rest of the meeting and any follow-up?
If they were to make a decision without extending the deadline, they should evaluate each of the proposals technical and management sections first, without regard to cost, to determine how each of the proposals adhere to the requirements as stated in the RFP. Only after they determine which proposals are still viable candidates based on the technical and management requirements, should they consider the cost of the project.
4. How could the selection process have been improved?
Is there anything the board, I. M. Uno, Alysha, or the team could have done differently? The RFP process took four months to complete. They should have allotted at least that much time to make a decision on which contractor to use. Being that the new facility was in China, they should have taken into account that a firm in China would submit a proposal and allocated more time to the RFP deadline. They should have decided beforehand HOW they would go about evaluating each proposal submitted.