Writing professional RFP letters:

Learn secrets used by countless organizations to win
contracts through an RFP-based selection process.

Get your FREE RFP Letters Toolkit, 2014 EditionGet your FREE RFP Letters Toolkit, 2014 Edition

FREE Request for Proposal (RFP) Letters, including FREE samples of Letter of Intent, Disqualification Letter, Rejection Letter, Protest Letter, and Cover Letter
Tuesday September 2, 2014
@ RFP Evaluation CentersHome | How to write an RFP LetterHow to write an RFP Letter | FREE RFP Letters Templates and SamplesFREE RFP Letters Templates and Samples
Writing professional RFP letters, Get your RFP Letters Toolkit 2014 Edition
              Free of charge            Immediate delivery to your email            Call 1-800-496-1303 ext. 273
Get a FREE RFP Template Sample

FREE RFP Documents including:
Successfull RFPs in Construction NEW!
RFP Template
Acquisition Plan Template NEW!
RFP Cover Letter
Proposal Cover Letter
Executive Summary Template NEW!
FREE Company Profile Template
Disqualification Letter
Rejection Letter
Non-Binding Letter of Intent
Decision Matrix
No-Bid Letter
Protest Letter
Sole Source Protest Letter
Sole Source Justification & Approval (J&A)
Letter to Decline a Proposal
Contract Award Letter
 
FREE Requests for Proposals
(RFP) Template Samples:

Software RFP Template
Process ERP RFP Template
Discrete ERP RFP Template
CRM RFP Template
Accounting RFP Template

The Best
Proposal-related Book

Latest Procurement News & Bids Opportunities from Federal Agencies

FAQ about RFP and Proposals:
MADM-Based ERP Software Selection
Compare ERP NEW!
Sealed Bids NEW!
What is Competitive Procurement?
Uniform Contract Format (UCF)
What is Sole Source?
Abstract vs. Executive Summary: Discover The Main Differences NEW!
The Bid/No-Bid Analysis NEW!
Best-known Readability Scores
Bormuth Readability Score
List of Work Words NEW!
47 FREE Affidavit Form Samples NEW!
Bidder Responsibility Determination
Bid Responsiveness Determination
Food Court RFP Examples NEW!
Meta Tag Generator NEW!

More FAQ...Expand RFP FAQ

The Best
RFP-related Book

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Bookmark and Share

FREE Request for Proposal Letters Toolkit, 2014 Edition

Definition of AHP

"Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an approach to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into a hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for each criterion, and determining an overall ranking of the alternatives", as defined by DSS Resources.

The concept of AHP was developed, amongst other theories, by Thomas Saaty, an American mathematician working at the University of Pittsburgh.

What is analytical hierarchy process (AHP)?

By organizing and assessing alternatives against a hierarchy of multifaceted objectives, AHP provides a proven, effective means to deal with complex decision making. Indeed, AHP allows a better, easier, and more efficient identification of selection criteria, their weighting and analysis. Thus, AHP reduces drastically the decision cycle.

Benefits of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

AHP helps capture both subjective and objective evaluation measures, providing a useful mechanism for checking the consistency of the evaluation measures and alternatives suggested by the team thus reducing bias in decision making.

AHP allows organizations to minimize common pitfalls of decision making process, such as lack of focus, planning, participation or ownership, which ultimately are costly distractions that can prevent teams from making the right choice. 

Prescription of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

AHP is very useful when the decision-making process is complex, for instance, by being unstructured. Indeed, when the decision cycle involves taking into account a variety of multiple criteria which rating is based on a multiple-value choice, AHP splits the overall problem to solve into as many evaluations of lesser importance, while keeping at the same time their part in the global decision.

Steps of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

The Best
AHP-related book

  1. Decomposing


    The goal is to structure the problem into humanly-manageable sub-problems. 

    To do so, iterating from top (the more general) to bottom (the more specific), split the problem, which is unstructured at this step, into sub-modules that will become sub-hierarchies. Navigating through the hierarchy from top to bottom, the AHP structure comprises goals (systematic branches and nodes), criteria (evaluation parameters) and alternative ratings (measuring the adequacy of the solution for the criterion). 

    Each branch is then further divided into an appropriate level of detail. At the end, the iteration process transforms the unstructured problem into a manageable problem organized both vertically and horizontally under the form of a hierarchy of weighted criteria.

    By increasing the number of criteria, the importance of each criterion is thus diluted, which is compensated by assigning a weight to each criterion.

  2. Weighing


    Assign a relative weight to each criterion, based on its importance within the node to which it belongs. The sum of all the criteria belonging to a common direct parent criterion in the same hierarchy level must equal 100% or 1. A global priority is computed that quantifies the relative importance of a criterion within the overall decision model.
  3. Evaluating


    Score alternatives and compare each one to others. Using AHP, a relative score for each alternative is assigned to each leaf within the hierarchy, then to the branch the leaf belongs to, and so on, up to the top of the hierarchy, where an overall score is computed.
  4. Selecting


    Compare alternatives and select the one that best fits the requirements.

Web resources about the analytical hierarchy process

Tips, templates, and samples of professional RFP letters

FREE Request for Proposal Letters Toolkit, 2014 Edition

WANT TEMPLATES AND SAMPLES
FOR WINNING RFP LETTERS?

Learn tips on how to write professional, very impressive, and bullet-proof Request for Proposal letters in our FREE Request for Proposal Letters Toolkit.

You will find in it lots of templates and samples of professional Request for Proposal letters.

It's FREE!

 

"No doubt that these letters save time"
- Pascal PERRY


Request for Proposal Cover Letter

Read the Report that software vendors don't want you to know about
Compare

Close the window

POGO Urges OSTP to Ensure that Agency Scientific Integrity Plans Include Contractors and Grantees

POGO is pleased to see that most federal departments and agencies have finally made public their draft or final scientific integrity plans in response to President Obama's March 2009 Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. However, POGO is concerned that several agencies have not included contractors or grantees in their plans. The failure to ensure the integrity of science performed outside the government but funded with taxpayer dollars is particularly troubling given that some of these departments or agencies—such as the Department of Energy (DOE)—rely heavily or nearly entirely on contractors and grantees for scientific research. .

14 Federal Agencies Fail to Fulfill the President's Directive: Billions in Taxpayer-Funded Science Not Included in Integrity Plans and Policies

The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Food and Drug Administration were two of 14 federal agencies that failed to set proper scientific standards for contract and grantee researchers, despite the fact that tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money funds this science each year, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) said in a letter sent today to the Obama administration..

POGO Supports DoD Effort to Redefine Commercial Items

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) urges you to support the Department of Defense's (DoD) legislative proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act that will result in improved oversight of billions of dollars' worth of so-called "commercial" goods and services..

POGO Supports Proposed Defense Contractor Crime Reporting Rule

The Department of Defense (DoD) seeks input on a proposal to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to expand coverage on contractor requirements and responsibilities with regard to the reporting of crimes committed by or against contractor personnel. .

POGO's Response to Professional Services Council Letter Regarding Reducing Civilian Workforce

Senators and Representatives recently received a letter from the Professional Services Council (PSC) responding to their letters to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in they criticized the Department of Defense's (DoD) efficiency initiative, which aims to reduce costs by scaling back the civilian workforce to 2010 levels rather than compliance with mandates to reduce reliance upon contractors. We would like to offer some perspective on a number of points raised in the PSC letter..

POGO and Partners Strongly Support Passage of the DATA Act

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing in strong support of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act), H.R. 2146, which is planned for a floor vote this Wednesday. The DATA Act is an important step towards improving federal financial transparency and would empower the public to better understand how their federal dollars are being spent. .

A Test Case on Sanctions?

If there's one thing most Americans support in foreign policy, it's sanctions against Iran to halt its alleged drive for nuclear weapons. From President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, leading candidates all want to put the economic squeeze on Tehran and to signal their support for Israel. President Obama recently announced he will ratchet up sanctions on the country's oil exports and declared a "national emergency" to deal with the Islamic Republic. The Senate will try to iron out its differences over anti-Iran measures in coming weeks, as bus stations around Washington, DC, are studded with advertisements questioning the President's resolve on the issue..

U.S. Wasting Billions on Over-Priced Service Contracts; Government Lacks Data to Make Informed Contracting Decisions, POGO Tells Congressional Subcommittee

The federal government more than doubled its spending on service contracts over the last decade, despite having inaccurate data on the "true" cost of those contracts—largely because of the misguided notion that outsourcing is more cost effective than using federal workers, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) told a Senate subcommittee today..

POGO's Scott Amey testimony on "Contractors: How Much Are They Costing the Government?"

I want to thank Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Portman, and the Subcommittee for asking the Project On Government Oversight (POGO to submit written testimony about the important, but often ignored, issue of service contracting costs. Although there are many initiatives in place to cut federal agency spending and reduce the costs associated with the federal workforce, the cost of contractor services has escaped scrutiny. Such avoidance is extremely disturbing because the government annually spends more taxpayer dollars on contractor services than it spends on goods, over $320 billion and $210 billion in FY 2011, respectively. To put that level of spending in perspective, total contract spending was $205 billion in FY 2000, of which services accounted for $128 billion of the total..

Last Modified: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:25:11 PM



Recent Searches:

A: 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

B: 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

C: 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

D: 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

E: 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

F: 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

G: 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

H: 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

I: 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

J: 2 | 1
 

K: 1
 

L: 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

M: 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

N: 2 | 1
 

O: 3 | 2 | 1
 

P: 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

Q: 1
 

R: 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

S: 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

T: 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

U: 1
 

V: 2 | 1
 

W: 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1
 

X: 1
 

Y: 1
 

Z: 1
 

OTHERS: 3 | 2 | 1
 
Copyright © September 2014 by RFP Evaluation Centers. All rights reserved (Tuesday September 2, 2014)

RFP Evaluation Centers
740 Saint-Maurice Street, 4th floor
Montréal (Québec) H3C 1L5, Canada
1-800-496-1303 ext. 273 (toll free)
1-514-954-3665 ext. 273 (office)
1-514-954-9739 (fax)
Disclaimer:
We maintain this web site as a service we gracefully offer you, decision makers working at organizations whether requesting or providing external services and products, and who are interested in finding online free templates and samples of documents related to solicitation and selection processes. You are hereby cautioned not to consider the content provided on this web site and all its ancillary documents as a legal or contracting policy advice whatsoever. Indeed, this information should not be relied upon as a substitution for consulting a lawyer. We provide you, only as a convenience, with external references (books, links, etc.) that are not under our control. We are not responsible for their content and, therefore, assume no liability.

We are eager to help you out in your information quest, call us at our toll-free number 1-800-496-1303 ext. 273.