Managing the RFP Process for Vendor and Software Selection
If you have ever attempted to choose an eDiscovery vendor to assist in the collection and processing of electronically stored information (ESI), or attempted to determine whether a network-based litigation support program is preferable to a web-based online repository program, you’ll know what a daunting process this can be. If you assume a network-based solution is ultimately less expensive, you may be surprised to learn that an online solution may actually be the less expensive alternative when you factor in the costs for additional servers and internal IT support. Do you know how to do a cost-benefit comparison between the two options?
There are many competitors in the field offering competing products that may or may not be comparable. Feature sets vary substantially from product to product. Some may work well for your case; others may not. The size of your case and the nature of your case may dictate different solutions. One size does not necessarily fit all. Do you want to pay for something you have no intention of using? On the other hand, will you be penny wise and pound foolish and reject a program that appears too expensive at first, but could ultimately save you a tremendous amount of money over the long term?
More than anything else, there are wide swings between vendor costs associated with eDiscovery, often for the exact same work. The ability to formulate an RFP that meets your particular needs is crucial. Perhaps more importantly, the ability to understand proposals to ensure true comparability is a key component of a successful vendor or platform selection process. ONLAW Trial Technologies, LLC is vendor neutral, and our consultants have high-level contacts within the industry, and great experience with a variety of different products and services. We can help you develop an appropriate RFP for eDiscovery services, and interpret the results in an unbiased way, to help you pick the most cost-effective solution to meet the needs of your particular case.