For those who had questions re Westlake and the bidding process, it was
raised at GNSO. Here is the answer.
Stephanie Perrin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [council] Follow up items from GNSO Council Meeting on 24
September
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:26:02 +0000
From: Larisa B. Gurnick <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
CC: Jen Wolfe ([log in to unmask]) <[log in to unmask]>
Dear members of the GNSO Council,
I understand that there were some questions raised at your meeting on 24
September in connection with the briefing on the GSNO Review, and staff
would like to provide additional clarifying information.
*Competitive Bidding Process and Selection of Independent Examiner*
In connection with the open competitive bidding process used to select
the independent examiner, a total of 7 proposals were submitted. All
bids were reviewed and evaluated for all data responsive to the RFP, not
just the low bid. Price was one of many considerations. Bids received
ranged from less than $50,000 to over $1 million, with the lowest and
highest representing significant outliers. Westlake’s bid pricing was
in the median range when adjusting for the significant outliers. Once
all bids were evaluated, Westlake was selected as the most qualified
consultant relative to, but not limited to, the following high level
selection criteria:
1) Understanding of the assignment
2) Knowledge and expertise
a. Demonstrated experience in conducting broadly similar examinations
b. Not-for-profit experience
c. Basic knowledge of ICANN
d. Geographic and cultural diversity, multilingualism, gender balance
e. Suitability of proposed CVs
3) Proposed methodology
a. Work organization, project management approach, timelines
b. Suitability of tools and methods or work
c. Clarity of deliverables
4) Flexibility, including but not limited to meeting the timeline
5) Reference checks
6) Financial value
7) Conflict of Interest
=> Additional information about the RFP
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm>
=> GNSO Review FAQs <https://community.icann.org/x/zbXhAg>
Staff is available to provide the GNSO Council a more complete overview
of how the competitive bidding/RFP process functions, including what
information is required to be kept confidential for the benefit of the
process’ integrity.
*Review Methodology*
The methodology used for the GNSO Review followed best practices and
professional standards for independence, proficiency and due
professional care. The current GNSO Review achieved 178 completed 360
Survey responses and 40 one-on-one interviews, compared with an average
of 71 survey responses and 60 interviews for prior Organizational
Reviews. Information was collected through a variety of means – online
360 Survey with quantitative and qualitative aspects, one-on-one
interviews that resulted in twice as many individuals interviewed as
originally planned, extensive desk review of documents and in-person
observations during three ICANN meetings. Additionally, Westlake
participated in the majority of the 21 GNSO Review Working Party calls
and 23 public sessions held at ICANN meetings and considered feedback
provided by the GNSO Review Working Party as well as by others through
formal public comment process and other feedback means. The Independent
Examiner provided their rationale in response to community feedback
throughout the process(for example, seeComparison Chart
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136596/GNSO%20Review%20Recommendations%20-%20changes%20from%20Draft%20to%20Final%20Report.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443222114000&api=v2>)
=> Detailed information on Review Methodology is included in the Final
Report
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf>,
Section 3 (pages 24-30).
Thank you for your continued interest and support of this important
accountability mechanism.
*Larisa B. Gurnick*
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Mobile: 1 310 383-8995
Skype: larisa.gurnick
|
