Posted: August 13th, 2013
Request for Proposal
Request for Proposal
The purpose of this Request for proposals (RFP) is to engage a client to supply the following services to Google Inc. Google Inc, by means of this RFP, invites all qualified companies to submit proposals that comply with all the regulations delineated in this RFP. Google Inc predicts that, based on its appraisal and assessment of the proposals obtained in accordance with this RFP, it will pick a supplier and sign a contract whereby the supplier will deliver the services to Google Inc, in line with the terms and conditions agreed upon in the contract.
Google Inc. is an American international company that makes available Internet-based products and services, including research, cloud storage, software and advertising innovations. Advertising revenues from Ad Words contributes a large chunk of the company’s profits. The company was established by Larry Page while he was studying in Stanford University. Google was first registered as a private company in 1998 and in 2004; it floated its initial public offering. The company’s mission statement was to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Company’s right to reject
Google Inc., in its sole judgment, reserves the right to reject any proposals including, without constraint, any material that is brought for their consumption by the different suppliers.
Schedule of events
Google Inc. will try to comply with the following proposed timeline that is used for assessing, bargaining and issuing a contract.
|Public notification of the purpose to propose to potential proposers||Jan 2013|
|Issuance of Request for Proposal||04/ 02/ 2013|
|Checking deadline for receipt of RFP||11/ 02/ 2013|
|Availing comments and queries through website||15/ 02/ 2013|
|Verbal presentations for chosen proposers||21/ 02/ 2013|
|Issuing recommendations to the board of directors||26/ 02/ 2013|
The results reported in the survey analysis were based on the participation of the colleagues and classmates. The results of the survey were very compelling and were not as previously expected. The survey was performed to collect information on people’s experiences in identifying JIT solutions found in various technological platforms. The initial question asked was what types of technologies were regularly used and the results of the survey indicated that personal computers and cell phones were the most popular. About 75% of the respondents regularly used laptops and just over 50% used Tablets in their social and economic activities. The results for iPad users were very dismal and stood at approximately 25% of the total respondents. With the prominence of the gadget, it was surprising that very few people preferred iPads as they opted for the other sources of work and interaction. The usage of the JIT solution and databases to accessing information was accessible to everyone that participated in the study. When questioned about the definite learning method, most respondents stated that they preferred online lectures and knowledge base as their preferred learning tool with only a few indicating that they preferred traditional forms of learning. The respondents replied that they each spent anywhere from 20 minutes to four or more hours of training for this activity. In conclusion, based on this analysis, the JIT solution using Microsoft Office Power point offered the best solution to the training. Power-point slides are easily to generate and administer as they are precise and learners have an easy time grasping ideas using the graphics. They are also lightweight applications that are easily transferable across various technological platforms.
Statement of Work
The rationale for this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to attract prospective vendors to present a proposal for the exclusive rights to produce and supply communication equipment such as computers and tablets to Google Inc. This proposal also addresses the effectiveness of this process and its potential to improve the current systems of communication. The RFP issues vendors with the pertinent application, performance and operational necessities of the system (Porter-Roth, 2002).
Right to modify, rescind or revoke RFP
Google Inc. sets aside the rights to alter, withdraw, or revoke this RFP, completely or partially, at any time before the date on which the certified representative of the Company signs up a contract with the chosen proposer.
Compliance with RFPR requirements
Through submitting a proposal, a proposer agrees to be attached by the requirements outlined in the RFP. Google Inc, at its sole judgment, may exclude a proposal from consideration, if they establish a proposal was not compliant in whole or partly, with the requirements prescribed in this RFP.
Binding Effect of Proposal
Unless otherwise agreed in writing and ratified by the Vice President for Business Affairs, each Proposer will assent to and shall be bound by the details and credentials provided with the proposal, including prices cited for services rendered.
Signature and Certification of Proposer
The proposal must be cleared and confirmed by an agent of the proposer who is approved to bind the proposer to the terms and conditions contained in this RFP and to conform to the information presented in the proposal. Each proposer presenting a proposal verifies to the wholeness, actuality, and correctness of the information provided in the proposal as well as the authority of the person whose signature appears on the proposal to bind the proposer to the regulations outlined in this RFP. Proposals presented without the mandatory signature shall be deemed ineligible (Pallans, 2005).
Requirements for submission
The proposers shall ensure that they shall present their proposals in the following way. One original copy that is clearly marked, processed using Microsoft Word (spacing 10 point, Times New Roman font) and clearly comprehensible. The original copy should be in a three-ring binder and should bear the name of the proposer as well as the subject matter.
Deadline for proposals
The latest proposals should reach the Google Inc. company headquarters or on before 31 February 2013 and no later than 4: 00 pm. The company will not accept any proposal that is presented after this date as ample time has been provided to all potential proposers to make then necessary submissions.
Budget & Estimated Pricing
The survey report entailed discovering technologies that could support the choice of JIT solutions. Six potential solutions were available that could effectively access databases to view the information online. This report analyzed the performance of these six innovations and contrasted their suitability. In the various categories available, much care was taken to analyze the solutions objectively and without bias, as the potential effectiveness of the solutions was crucial to the development of the technology. The Cost Analysis report below illustrates the various innovations proposed and their evaluations.
|From $449||They are relatively faster and may contain higher resolutions and memory capacities, which make them efficient||They are relatively expensive and may require additional accessories such as modems to access the internet. They cannot be carried from one place to another (Ward, 2011). Due to the ever-developing software, they easily become redundant, as they cannot handle the necessary capacities.|
|From $19.99||They are relatively easy to carry from one place to another. They are cheap and simple to use.||They are small and have low screen resolutions. They are relatively slow in accessing the internet. The content they offer is limited to the type of software that the manufacturer develops them with.|
|From $349||Depending on the memory and size, they have a high screen resolution and are relatively faster. They can easily be carried from one place to another.||They are expensive and delicate.
They require to be handled with care. According to my survey, up to 25% of people do not have access to laptops. Their life span is also limited with new products replacing old ones constantly.
|From $499||They have relatively more features and applications. They are more comfortable to carry (Reeds, 2002).||They are more delicate than laptops and computers. They have features that are more complex. As such, the target of this feature is limited to those who are conversant with this technology.|
|From $ 269||They are cheaper than laptops and computers. They contain most of the features you can find in laptops and computers. They are also relatively easier to carry (Tellijohn, 2010).||They may lack some essential applications such as the flash viewer used for browsing. The limitations in software compatibility also hinder individuals not conversant with this technology from adopting it on a wide scale.|
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.