There are various fascinating factors to creating a network of possible suppliers to obtain a request for proposal (RFP) addressed in this case study. Additionally, the paper will focus on the arguments favoring and against the inclusion of Aerolog, Inc., on the Request for Proposal (RFP) list of the Ripley Engine Company. Additionally, the groundbreaking research of Ripley Engine Company revealed that one of the four organizations, Aerolog, Inc., had experienced shipment failures and quality issues two years ago, resulting in the firm’s abolition as Ripley’s business supplier.
The general public has a common misconception that potential suppliers are constantly knocking on supply management’s door to be recognized as sources of supply. All too often, though, this is not the situation. Highly qualified supply managers who have not established preferred supplier relationships with a restricted but viable supply base frequently strive to broaden their supplier base by acquiring new suppliers. Therefore, Ripley should ensure that there are appropriate strategies within its organization to handle cases dealing with suppliers who earlier were substandard but again have turned out extremely qualified as of current.
Aerolog has been ranked as outstanding to its rivals in the following categories: financial health and quality reputation for the past two years, customer satisfaction ratings. It comes in second place in terms of the quality of its management team and the rate of expansion. It has the greatest amount of untapped potential incomplete terms about employment rate and the volume of sales. Without the recent unpleasant incident, Aerolog seems to be the most promising contender in this category.
Aerolog had been disqualified from competition three years beforehand. Because of the normative political override, including Aerolog on the Request for Proposal (RFP) list is a highly contentious matter. If Aerolog obtains the prize and then fails for any reason, both the company and those who chose it will have suffered greatly as a result. Additionally, Aerolog’s poor performance prompted Ripley to pursue legal action against the firm in 1992-1993, permanently tarnishing the corporation’s image, particularly among the company’s veteran employees.
The first approach would be to eliminate Aerolog from the database of firms eligible to obtain RFPs, as the company has already tarnished its reputation in Ripley’s eyes owing to the quality and delivery difficulties. This move would be favorably received by the various divisions, which are adamantly opposed to Aerolog doing business with Ripley, particularly the company’s veterans.
Secondly, it would be for board members to distribute the comparable data to various departments via conferences explaining why including Aerolog on the RFP list will benefit Ripley and soliciting opinions from them. The benefit of this substitute is that it will almost certainly garner support from new members who will be persuaded and loosen their stance and demonstrate a feeling of inclusion and diversity in the Board’s process. However, the disadvantage is that the majority of long-time members will almost certainly remain unconvinced.
Lastly, the Ripley Board should engage Aerolog’s contracting and quality control divisions in a vetting process to ensure that past procuring and quality control flaws have been addressed. Again, Aerolog should be committed lawfully to paying legal damages in the event of contract failure. This solution is excellent because it may create a framework for mending the schism between the two organizations. The negative is that Aerolog’s representatives may be reluctant to conduct the screening, mistaking it for a loss of integrity.
Reference
O’Brien, J. (2017). The Buyer’s Toolkit: An Easy-to-use Approach for Effective Buying. Kogan Page Publishers.