The pressures of being short-staffed are likely drivers for government agencies electing to have an external entity with expertise and sensitivity to specific project requirements provide an initial advertisement via a Request for Information (RFI). What are the upsides and downsides of anonymity?

Some state and local agencies seeking to remain anonymous during the informal RFI period due to time constraints are using other outlets. An upside of anonymity for government entities during the RFI process is that external consultants can field and filter questions and inquiries from the vendor community. This can also prevent biases prior to the release of a formal solicitation on a publicly accessible government procurement website. Subsequently after external assistance, the government entity can compile the information gathered to develop an RFP and then release that formal bid on a public government procurement website. An upside for the vendor community is that while the government entity has not placed the RFI on their website, there still has been an effort to better understand vendor solutions prior to releasing a detached RFP. Further, stereotypes and business practices often develop in certain regions, states and localities and this is a method of preventing these potential downfalls from creeping into proposed solutions.

The downside of opting for anonymity during the RFI process for the government community is there is a potential disconnect between the project plans and the proposed solutions. The lack of communication establishes a certain distance between the two primary stakeholders, government and vendors; when really these two groups should be working towards fostering a strong relationship. The downside of anonymity for vendors is that there is an inability to tailor initial responses to the needs of current systems, system-interfacing requirements and so forth. This leads to intensified efforts during the RFP phase to tweak proposals and provide regionally-sensitive solutions in a historically short turn-around time. Further, most vendors are unable to respond to all RFPs so therefore must pick and choose projects and tend to select regions in which there is already a strong presence, relationship and expertise. Anonymity would therefore impede this typical selection process in the initial phase.

One example of an external entity assisting and advertising RFIs for government entities is the Public Health Foundation Enterprise (PHFE). Currently on the PHFE website there are three RFIs posted: a Public Health/Clinical Case Management Information System, an Environmental Health Information System and a Fiscal/Accounting Services Information System. INPUT confirmed that if RFPs are released as a result of these RFIs the government entities would make themselves known and release the RFP on a publicly accessible government procurement website, as well as PHFE listing the RFP.

Gain more insight into the hottest state and local RFPs for 2008 at INPUT's 3rd Annual State & Local MarketView event on June 4, 2008 in Tysons Corner.