Background
The PeopleSoft implementation Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to twenty vendors. The scope of the RFP included all activities
necessary to implement PeopleSoft's Human Resource Management System and Student
Administration System. Five vendors responded to the RFP: Cambridge Technology Partners,
Coopers & Lybrand, Dimension Systems Inc., PeopleSoft, and The Hunter Group.
The evaluation team evaluated three major areas of the proposals: company background (30% of
score), functional requirements (40%), and cost (30%). Coopers & Lybrand, Dimension Systems
Inc., and The Hunter Group were eliminated from further consideration because they had no
experience in implementing PeopleSoft applications in a higher education environment.
Cambridge and People Soft were then asked to give on-campus presentations.
Recommendation
With important considerations and constraints (identified below) in mind, the evaluation team
recommends that the university contract with Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., for the
installation of the HRMS and SAS systems.
Rationale
In addition to a cost estimate lower than PeopleSoft's, the Cambridge proposal has these
characteristics to support this recommendation:
Cambridge's methodology is better organized and defined than PeopleSoft's methodology.
Cambridge has more experience implementing PeopleSoft applications in higher education.
Cambridge proposes fixed-cost, fixed-time pricing to be done for each phase after project scope is
complete; PeopleSoft proposed only time and material pricing.
Considerations
A complex system is developed in stages--scope, prototyping, and implementation--for each
system module ("campus community," the common elements of the database used by all modules;
recruitment and admissions; combined financial aid/student records and financials; and human
resources). Each stage is separately scheduled and priced. The scope stage is project-wide, but
prototyping and implementation occur independently by module, so that module development
schedules may overlap. Table A (from the Cambridge proposal) illustrates the module scheduling
for this project.
Cambridge's fixed-cost, fixed-time pricing by stage will provide the university with firm pricing
when each stage begins (which the PeopleSoft time-and-material pricing does not). Because of
the staging and scheduling by module, however, the overall cost of the implementation cannot be
precisely estimated at this time. Once the last modules have been prototyped (i.e., by late spring
1998), firm estimates of the total cost will be available.
Cambridge proposes to complete the project scope for $135,000 (two months). The prototyping
stage for all modules is estimated at $975,000; this figure may be revised after the scope is
complete.
Constraints
The Cambridge proposal estimates implementation costs for the entire project at $3,339,470
(attachment A). This estimate is based on the assumption that no customization costs will be
entailed; actual costs could be significantly higher if many modifications to the base system are
made or if policy decisions cannot be made in a timely way.
The project budget allocates about $2.1 million for implementation consulting. In view of this
constraint, the evaluation team secured Cambridge's proposal for an implementation process that
could be completed within the current budget.
Attachment B shows the consulting functions that will be lost if the constraints of the current
budget are not relieved. In the opinion of the evaluation team, this high loss of service will
seriously impair the effectiveness of the implementation and may jeopardize the overall success of
the project.
To deliver the systems, a contract with Cambridge may require additional funds in an amount not yet known, but almost certainly more than the $2.1 million currently budgeted and likely to be $3.34 million or more. Before proceeding with the contract, the project management seeks the endorsement of the provost and the vice presidents for the implementation budgeting outlined in this report.
Estimated Costs
Cambridge Cost Proposal Est Costs
(18 mths) (24 mths) (30 mths) Implementation Services
$ 3,635,000 $ 3,335,000 $ 3,485,000
Travel and living expenses (15%)
$ 432,750 $ 387,750 $ 410,250
Work stations/office expense
$ 16,720 $ 16,720 $ 17,980
Sub Total $ 4,084,470 $ 3,739,470 $ 3,913,230
Less Training Consulting
$ (400,000) $ (400,000) $ (400,000)
Total $ 3,684,470 $ 3,339,470 $ 3,513,230
The Implementation Services costs include $135,000 as a fixed-price, fixed-time proposal for the
first phase (scope), with estimates for the remaining phases. A firm price will be negotiated for
each phase at the completion of the previous phase.
PeopleSoft Cost Proposal Est Costs
(18 mths) (24 mths) (30 mths)
Implementation Services
$ 6,554,000 $ 3,354,000 $2,500,000
Travel and living expenses (15%)
$ 983,100 $ 503,100 $ 375,000
Work stations/office expense
$ 22,680 $ 22,680 $ 11,760
Total $ 7,559,780 $ 3,879,780 $2,886,760
All costs are estimated time and material.
Cambridge $2,100,000 Implementation Cost Proposal (24 Months)
Implementation Services $ 1,807,935The following items have been excluded or shifted to U of L staff to meetTravel and living expenses (15%) $ 271,190
Work stations/office expense $ 20,875
Total $ 2,100,000
a $2.1 million budget:
All software upgrades will be performed by U of L.
All education curriculum and training will be performed by U of L.
All technical infrastructure design will be performed by U of L.
All database tuning will be performed by U of L staff.
All project management during the implementation phase will be performed by U of L staff.
A Cambridge project manager will be eliminated from the implementation phases (The estimated cost of this item is $450,000); as a result, time and material pricing will be used for implementation phases.
The Senior Technical Team leader will be substituted with a Technical Team Leader for the implementation phases.
Assumes no modifications to HRMS/SAS modules.
Reallocation of HR resources to student records/financials. One less Cambridge Technical consultant will be used.
Does not include any technical support for the UNIX, database, or workstation environments.
Payroll consultants would not be involved with HR design.
No consultant programming support for Time & Labor and Benefits Administration.
Posted 10/28/97