4/10/09 Rumors are circulating that Gov. Palin has fired Moose Ovadahill, her former junior high school sweetheart, from his state engineer’s job. The governor was overheard responding to Moose’s assertion that the “Link to Somewhere Project” would take as long as 40 years or longer if the Governor doesn’t specify where the bridge is suppose to end. The Governor is rumored to have said that Moose never could finish anything. That is why they broke up.

Gov. Palin launched an effort to build a bridge from Anchorage to Seattle. The Governor authorized the State Engineer to do a feasibility study for a “link to somewhere.”Palin said, ” If we can build it high enough we can use it as a moose, deer and caribou hunting platform and pay for the bridge with hunting license fees. When told by a reporter this would mean 38 million hunters per year, the Governor responded that once people tasted Alaskan caribou and moose meat , the sky would be the limit.

How much does requiring all relevant past projects and an in-depth history of the suggested PMs change my existing RFP and other processes?

The owner simply expands the requirement for client lists with the rationale that references constitute a partial answer to being “responsible”.  Rather than ask for four or five references, I suggest that you ask for a complete project list over the last three to five years that is relevant to the type of planned project and a similar PM history.  There is nothing illegal or immoral in asking for a complete picture.

 If we are doing a good job now and our vendors are good, why do I need Selection process improvements? Unless all your vendors are 9s and 10s, your due diligence can now focus on the most important identified weaker criteria that checking complete past client references uncovers.  Rather than make four or five calls as required in most situations and generalizations, a diligence process will provide a menu for in-depth, quick and timesaving incisive.  Isn’t it worth taking the risk out of the potential slippage of a firm or assuring all parties and the public that due diligence was truly performed.

Handpicked references allow the poor performers to hide and the mediocre ones to duck behind the veneer of a few good clients.  The truth of consistently good or excellent performance is lost in fog of selectively picked predictably favorable references.  In recent studies of facility managers, 56% of the respondents felt very or somewhat skeptical of the existing references and rating process.
When “handpicking” is permitted it is a joke, the concept of “responsible bidder” or selecting the best A/E/C is often sacrificed.  How else could a firm that causes budget overruns on a third of their projects, late delivering 25% of their projects, and/or with major quality issues in 33% of their projects become “responsible”?
The obvious answer to most handpicking reference RFPs or bids is to show only the good and hide the rest.  Why not?  If we redefine “responsible” or the best firm (AE) to mean some of the time then allowing hand picked references would be fine.  Where else in commerce is “some of the time” an acceptable standard or responsibility?
However, negating what is a fair representation of a firm’s record and not leveling the playing field truly punishes good and excellent firms.  The results, owners get short changed and often punished with performers who are high risk in accomplishing the project goals.
The solution is simple.  Require a total list of relevant projects or dollar amounts, size, going back X amount of years depending on how relevant dated experience is today.  Additionally, RatingSource suggests you score the PMs as they are 50% of the success of the project.  It is important to get a past history of the suggested PM.
Once you have the responses to your RFP with its new requirements, it is critical to follow up with each of the references.  Equally important is to have a set number of criteria or questions that can be quantitatively answered, scored, measured, probed, and compared easily.  Remember, people who give references are interrupting their extremely busy days.  Do not abuse their time.  Be comprehensive but not time intrusive.
The result should be given to the selection committee a few days in advance of “the meeting” with explicit instructions to review carefully and develop their questions on strengths and weaknesses.  It is also helpful to have the members of the committee prioritize the questions or criteria based on what is most important to them.
In sum, by using the new more expanded interpretation of “responsible” and “best” and requiring complete lists of references, owners will end the joke of handpicked references get better teams and project managers. It will end with truly better players being rewarded for past superior performance.