Hi
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS

We read and analyzed the proposal from each vendor. Areas in
question or lacking sufficient detail were discussed and confirmed in

writing where necessary.

As a first step in the analysis, we considered each vendor's pro-
posal for completeness in conforming to all of the requirements of the
Request for Proposal. Our conclusion from this first step was that
taree of the proposals, clearly did not meet the requirements closely
enough, and should not be given any further consideration. We confirmed
this conclusion by phone with Mr. Maitland and did not include these three
Proposals in any further analysis for the following reasons:

ICL Computers Canada Ltd.

This proposal did not include any cost or functional details at
all for software. Reference was made to two Eastern Canadian
Cities with the onus on you to contact and negotiate software
acquisition. In addition the proposed hardware cost was about
50% higher than most of the other proposals. Finally, this
proposal was mixed up with a proposal to another local munici-
pality and was missing one complete section identified in the

index.

Olivetti Canada Ltd.

This proposal was of generally poor quality in comparison to

the others received. It did not identify any reference instal-
lations at all and ignored totally requirements such as word
Processing, back-up facilities and contract conditions. The
important requirement of software was dismissed in one page with
the suggestion of a maximum cost of $100,000 to develop custom
applications. No reference was made to how such development
might be scheduled or when anything would be available.

Sperry Univac

This proposal also concentrated on hardware. Reference was
made to a City in the B.C. interior with the onus on you to
contact and negotiate software acquisition. The hardware

cost proposed was also about 50% higher than most of the other

proposals. ,

Thorne Stevensan & Kellogg