In a previous post, I have outlined a draft Request for Proposal structure (RFP) in relation to courts securing services to develop, deploy and manage a web site designed in accordance with the CCCT IntellAction Working Group Guidelines on Court Web Sites.
In this post, please find our draft evaluation criteria in relation to the RFPs.
Web Content Management System (WCMS) RFP Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria are suggested for inclusion in the WCMS RFP. They should be expanded and tailored to each court and context. Courts should decide which criteria are mandatory, which are weighted and, in the latter case, the weight accorded:
- WCMS – Viability: How extensively is the recommended WCMS used on the web to power comparable web sites (in terms of richness of content / languages / structure / number of registered and concurrent users)? Does it have a large developer pool from which the court could draw for development services? Does it have a regular upgrade cycle? Is it free (the WCMS itself)? Does it have a dynamic and easily accessible developer community in which all problems and concerns are responded to quickly and acted upon?
- WCMS – Autonomy: Once the initial site is delivered and configured, does it provide an easy interface (GUI) for the client to manage user and content permissions, content approval and translations, etc., without having to resort to the developers?
- WCMS – Adherence to Principles: to what extent does the recommended WCMS adhere to each of the principles laid out in Part III of the current guidelines? What development efforts are required to meet those principles – does the proposed WCMS meet them “out-of-the-box”, or significant customization and/or configuration is needed?
- WCMS – Costs: are the development costs fairly predictable and do they provide good value for money? Is the developer willing to stipulate a fixed price contract?
Solution Provider RFP Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria are suggested for inclusion in the Solution Provider RFP. They should be expanded and tailored to each court and context. Courts should decide which criteria are mandatory, which are weighted and, in the latter case, the weight accorded:
- hosting platform – robustness: How secure is the proposed hosting environment in terms of confidentiality (preventing unauthorized access to the server), integrity (preventing unauthorized changes to web site information) and availability (ensuring a hosting architecture providing high availability to users)?
- solution provider – WCMS knowledge: Does the Solution Provider have internal resources that are knowledgeable about the court web site WCMS? Please note: If web site problems are experienced, they can be due to the WCMS itself, the hosting environment or both. If the Solution Provider is knowledgeable about the WCMS itself and provides end-to-end support services (covering both WCMS and server) for the web site, the Court can ask the Solution Provider to be accountable for web site end-to-end troubleshooting and resolution, which is ordinarily not possible with straightforward web hosting services
- solution provider – Service Level Agreement (SLA): Does the SLA reflect a clearly accountable Solution Provider for court web site troubleshooting? Does the SLA provide for a timely resolution of reported problems?
- solution provider – costs: What are the fixed yearly costs for maintaining a secure, up-to-date hosting environment? What are the fees for WCMS ad hoc development services, if available?