24 March SaaS Procurement Recommendations March 24, 2016By Jon Coss - Blog Manager cloud computing, innovative detection solutions, procurement process fraud, fraud detection, RFP, SaaS 1 This week, my company is responding to an RFP for SaaS fraud detection services. While we are thankful for the opportunity to respond, the RFP and its process also illustrates the need for governments to adjust their procurement processes with the advent of cloud computing. After all, we responded to the RFI for this procurement over two years ago!This means that the current solicitation is at least partly based on product capabilities from early 2014. While this might not be a big problem for traditional IT projects, this is a lifetime in SaaS. In fact, if a SaaS solution offered mostly similar functionality over a two-year period, I’d recommend not selecting that solution. Effective SaaS solutions push new features in days and weeks, not months or years.With this background in mind, I’d like to propose that governments consider the following three modifications to their procurement policies. Some of these changes may require assistance from legislative bodies and funding organizations in addition to procurement professionals.1. Reduce the time between RFI and RFP: This will help governments avoid building their requirements on functionality that has long since been replaced. SaaS functionality is a moving target – it’s supposed to be.2. Smooth out funding over multiple years: Traditional IT projects required large upfront implementation costs followed by lower ongoing support, maintenance, and operations costs (assuming the initial implementation was successful). SaaS solutions spread the cost more evenly over time as the solution continues to improve.3. Make sure your staff is ready when you award: True SaaS solutions can be implemented quickly, often in as few as 120 days. By the time you award a project, you should be ready to discuss security plans, access the required program data, assign staff (not just project staff but system users), and address many other details that could often be delayed in lengthy IT projects. Related Posts RFPs: The Devil is in the Details As a company that works with government clients, we spend a tremendous amount of time and money responding to Requests for Proposals (RFPs). We understand that governments use RFPs to ensure competitive bidding processes and to articulate their requirements. However, the process still causes enough angst for prospective bidders that, ironically, it often actually limits competition.We wrote in a previous blog post about the lengthy RFP procurement cycles and their impacts on the final project. Today I’d like to discuss the formats of the RFPs themselves which often cause confusion, leading to large numbers of vendor questions, which in turn leads to delayed timelines and incorrectly submitted bids. I confess that I have never been on the “other side of the table” writing an RFP and I can only imagine how difficult it must be. But I still have one simple suggestion that I wish government agencies would take prior to releasing an RFP.Before releasing an RFP to the vendor community, I suggest that government run an internal “mock” procurement: “release” the bid to a few agency employees and ask them to respond to it. They don’t have to provide actual answers, just an outline so they can make sure they understand what the RFP requires, where responses should go, how the format works, and other structural issues. It’s important that these people had nothing to do with the writing of the RFP document itself because then they’d naturally understand what they intended when they wrote it.Commonly confusing issues we see in RFPs include where to place a Statement of Work (in tables or in text), repeated questions, seemingly mutually exclusive statements or requirements, and “thrown in” requirements that belong in other sections and break up the flow of the response.I think government officials would be amazed at how much confusion and time they could take out of their procurements by performing this simple quality assurance exercise. This would also reduce the number of questions the state would have to respond to and provide more focus on issues of substance rather than administrative or formatting issues. Finally, it would lead to more uniformity of responses allowing governments to evaluate responses for their merit rather than having to search for answers to their requirements. How Startups Benefit Government What a delight it was to read a commentary in Government Technology magazine by Rebecca Woodbury, a Senior Management Analyst with the city of San Rafael, California. In the article, Rebecca recounts her experiences working with technology startups and the benefits to the city of moving beyond a small set of traditional providers.Rebecca argues that startups offer “simple and intuitive interfaces, don’t require costly implementation fees or long-term contracts, embody the spirit of continuous improvement, and have their eyes keenly on the future.” She goes on to state that these benefits are far more important than “the number of years a company has existed or the number of clients they have.” And she even provides ways to mitigate the risks associated with startups such as avoiding long term contracts.Right on Rebecca! While Pondera is no longer considered a startup and we can meet the stringent financial and customer qualification requirements in public sector bids, we work hard to hold on to the EXACT list of benefits Rebecca articulated. And when Pondera was a startup, we counted on people recognizing those benefits. That’s why we would get so frustrated when we would read RFPs that asked for “innovative solutions” but required that they be implemented for at least five years! In the age of cloud computing and Agile development, the gap between business needs and archaic procurement policies has grown into a gaping canyon.So, at the risk of inviting competitors into our market, I applaud Rebecca’s efforts and those of similar public servants who recognize that nimble, innovative startups offer compelling alternatives to large, established IT companies. I also know that competition makes all companies better. In the end, isn’t that what government wants in its partners? Disturbing Reports of Nursing Home Abuse Last month CNN published a horrifying report on sexual abuse in America’s nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The report provided details on dozens of assaults, rapes, and other incidents that, quite frankly, were extremely difficult to read. In my opinion, however, this level of detail is probably necessary to shock people into taking action against what CNN rightly labelled “an unchecked epidemic”.The numbers themselves are devastating. Approximately one million senior citizens are currently residing in 15,000 government-regulated long term care facilities. Since 2000, it appears that over 16,000 cases of sexual abuse have been reported, but the number is probably higher because of complex reporting systems and processes. And it’s impossible to determine the number of unreported cases.Between 2013 – 2016, CNN found that 1,000 government-regulated facilities had been cited for mishandling or failing to prevent sexual assaults. 100 of the facilities had been cited numerous times. And despite this, only 226 facilities were fined just $9 million. Only 16 of the facilities were cut off from Medicaid and Medicare!What is equally disturbing to the actual cases of abuse is the blatant disregard of safeguards and even the intentional impeding of investigations. Consider a case here in California where the employer allowed a nurse to continue working for weeks after reports of him kissing and fondling a female resident. This crime, by the way, resulted in only a $27,000 fine.At Pondera, we often say that fraud and abuse is most prevalent at the intersection of large amounts of money and vulnerable populations. This makes nursing homes “ground zero” for abuse because it is here that the escalating costs of long term care combine with dementia and other health issues that can make senior citizens problematic witnesses.Among several recommendations made by CNN was a call for improved reporting systems. We agree that this is an important piece of the solution. It will provide greater transparency and help regulators identify trends and clusters of abuse. But clearly, stricter oversite and enforcement are needed. So too is the type of no-nonsense reporting that CNN did for this report. Comment (1) [Pingback] Pingback from ponderasolutions.com Bloghttp://ponderasolutions.com/Blog/TabId/204/PostId/22/rfps-the-devil-is-in-the-details.aspx last year Comments are closed.