Learn how to navigate the request for proposal process and choose the right approach for your parking technology needs.
By Scott Petri
Frequently, the acquisition of new parking technologies requires thoughtful planning to ensure that intended goals are met. Often this technology is cutting edge and will overlay existing infrastructure and software and will almost certainly need to be customized to meet local rules, regulations, and organizational requirements.
Before implementing the request for proposal (RFP) process for parking technologies, organizations should consider the benefits and limitations of relying on a single vendor or multiple best-in-class providers. Depending on the project in question, the decision regarding which approach to use can go a long way toward ensuring a successful procurement of parking technology.
Setting clear goals for an RFP
A well-executed RFP serves as a roadmap to ensure that technology procurement meets an organization’s needs while avoiding unnecessary challenges. The goals of an effective RFP include:
• quality — ensuring the proposed solutions meet high standards of performance and reliability
• quantity of responses — generating a robust pool of proposals for comparison and to create competition
• less turmoil — streamlining the process to reduce confusion and stress among stakeholders
• easy installation — choosing systems that are simple to deploy, integrate with other technologies, and likely involve less hardware and capital expense than the incumbent system.
• successful transfer of data — ensuring seamless migration without loss of existing data into the new system, an important step for continuity and in the event of future legal challenges
• control of technology — maintaining oversight and flexibility in managing solutions post-implementation
Achieving these goals depends largely on the chosen procurement strategy: either relying on a single vendor — an approach often referred to as “one throat to choke” — or assembling solutions from multiple best-in-class providers. Each approach has distinct benefits and drawbacks.
The unified approach of one throat to choke
The strategy of one throat to choke consolidates responsibility under a single vendor or provider, relying upon a unified point of contact for implementation, support, and issue resolution. This approach confers the following benefits:
• Reduced finger pointing: With one vendor accountable, there is no confusion over who is responsible for resolving issues.
• Single point of resolution: Problems are streamlined to a single entity, simplifying troubleshooting and communication.
• Less staff time: Internal staff spend less time managing multiple vendor relationships and workflows.
However, the one-throat-to-choke approach also has the following downsides:
• Limited control over subcontractors: Oversight of the performance of subcontractors may be minimal (assuming that they are known). The selection of subcontractors is within the purview of the selected technology vendor.
• Integration challenges: Best-in-class solutions may not be selected or may not be integrated with the vendor’s technology, leading to potential performance gaps.
• Dependency on a single vendor: Replacing one system could require replacing an entire suite of technologies, leading to added cost and disruption.
• Higher costs: At the end of the contract period, consolidation under one vendor may result in markups for services and components.
Although this approach simplifies procurement management, it can sacrifice flexibility and potentially lead to higher costs.
Additionally, complex RFPs often result in a limited number of participants able to respond. An unintended consequence can occur when subcontractors face difficult decisions in choosing the contractor they want to partner with, not knowing who will be selected. This may result in a subcontractor not participating in the RFP or selecting a vendor to partner with that is not selected. If the subcontractor’s technology is best in class, this is not as favorable a result as may have been sought. Avoiding unnecessary restrictive qualifications reduces even further diminution of participants.
Maximizing control and customization with best in class
The best-in-class approach involves selecting individual vendors for specific components of a technology solution. This strategy enables organizations to prioritize quality and customization for each function.
This approach confers the following benefits:
• Organizations retain oversight and decision-making power for each provider and component.
• Individual components can be upgraded or replaced without disrupting the entire system.
• Competitive bidding for each solution may drive down costs.
• Organizations gain broader partnerships and insights by involving multiple vendors and specialists. New innovative partnerships are fostered.
• The procurement process often increases understanding of available technologies and solutions and leads to a deeper understanding of how the proposed solutions meet objectives.
The best-in-class approach also has the following downsides:
• Managing multiple vendors requires additional resources, including staff time and expertise. Consultants familiar with the newest technologies can provide important guidance regarding coordination of the RFPs.
• Integrating components from different providers can lead to finger pointing and disagreements about responsibilities.
• Installing multiple solutions may require extensive planning and coordination to keep a project on schedule.
• Procurement and implementation processes can take longer unless government cooperative purchasing programs can be utilized for parts of the technology.
• Even with a prime vendor to oversee the process, conflicts or misalignments may arise during implementation. Plan to have staff or an outside project manager available to ensure that project documents assign responsibility, the order for the roll out, and milestones to be achieved.
Choosing the right approach
Selecting between one throat to choke and best in class depends on an organization’s specific priorities:
• If simplicity, speed, and centralized accountability are paramount, the one-throat-to-choke model
offers advantages.
• If quality, flexibility, control, and performance optimization are key, the best-in-class strategy provides greater long-term benefits.
Ultimately, organizations must balance control with convenience to achieve their RFP goals while minimizing risk and maximizing value. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, decision-makers can navigate procurement challenges with confidence and clarity.
SCOTT PETRI is the president of Mobility & Parking Advisors, LLC. He can be reached at scott@mobilityparkingadvisors.com.
