Thu. Dec 1st, 2022

    Overall Requirements/Approach

    A generic procurement exercise will typically go through the following stages:

    • Requirements scoping.
    • Match potential vendors to requirement.
    • Assess vendor capability.
    • Short list.
    • Demonstration with real data.
    • Establish call off contracts.
    NOTE: How much do I really need to do?
    As little or as much as you want. The aim is to end up with a preferred supplier, whether for one case or for many. Some law firms have followed a full procurement route taking weeks, others have asked 3 vendors in for demonstrations on one day and made a selection after that. The absolute minimum you must do is look at the software with the people who will support it, if you can use your own data for the demo, even better.

    The main considerations for each of these stages are shown in the following sub-sections.

    Requirements scoping #

    All “Stakeholders” in the procurement should be interviewed. This not only includes the lawyers/legal staff in the litigation department, but might also embrace the legal teams from other disciplines. It should definitely include the IT department and (if one exists) the print room function. You would be amazed (or perhaps not if you are undertaking a procurement) as to how much stuff is still printed and photocopied.

    The firm’s accounting system might be examined to see which suppliers are already being paid for services, as well as a firm wide question on which suppliers people have heard about/used, and which they recommend/would never use again.

    The aim of the exercise is to distil down the requirements of the various parties into a coherent whole, so that competing products can be assessed in an “apples” for “apples” manner.

    One thing that will be needed is an estimate of the volumes of litigation that the firm undertakes. Firms should extract details from the their Practice Management System on the number of new litigation matters created each month, and couple these with estimates on the number of “live” matters, a rough idea of how much each is worth, and how long the cases run for. In this way they will have some idea of the overall scope of their requirement, and also vendors will understand the approximate value of the work they might obtain, and can price their offering accordingly.

    Match potential vendors to requirement #

    The aim here is to select a pool of potential vendors that match the requirement, with the trick being the elimination of those suppliers that do not “fit” the needs or ethos of the firm. This is a two way process, the vendors themselves are selective in their sales qualification process and will only focus on those prospects they have a real chance of winning. If your approach is too wide, you run the risk of alienating the marketplace, and only getting the desperate and the naïve bidding for your work.

    Assess vendor capability #

    Assessing vendor capability can be done in a number of ways. More formal procurements go through a cycle of Request for Information (RFI) to gather market knowledge, followed by a much more detailed Request for Procurement (RFP), which would contain the types of requirements shown the following Sections.

    Some firms prefer to go direct to a short list and straight into the formal RFP, whilst others will skip this stage entirely (with some advice) and invite a selected group in for demonstrations.

    All approaches are valid, it depends upon the budget for the procurement exercise, the level of formality the firm requires and the scope of the requirements.

    Short list #

    If a more formal RFP (and RFI) has been issued then the response will need to be evaluated, given some form of scoring (with or without weighting, depending upon the firm) and a short list selected. In cases where the circumstances warrant it, firms might move straight to this stage, relying upon their ability to identify which vendors might meet their requirements.

    Demonstration with real data #

    The next stage is key. Firms must evaluate the software they are considering using by means of a demonstration, preferably using the firm’s own data, ideally from a real life case, so that the issues with it are known. The panel looking at the products should be consistent across all demonstrations, and feedback should be collated in a managed format, so that personal bias is reduced as much as possible.

    References might also be taken up at this stage. Ultimately, however, it is the interaction between end users, the software and (most importantly) the vendor’s staff, that is of greatest significance.

    Establish call off contracts #

    Once vendors have been selected, the call-off contracts with discounted rates should be negotiated. It is better to use the law firms contract as a starting point, though the vendor T&C’s should be examined. The trap to avoid here is the over eager in-house lawyer looking to make up their hours who sees this as an exercise to re-write everything from scratch.

    Beyond the Perimeter? The DoD Zero Trust Strategy and Roadmap

    Current and future cyber threats and attacks drive the need for...

    Balancing Spend and Standards? Cybersecurity Investments in the European Union

    According to EU Agency for Cybersecurity Executive Director Juhan Lepassaar, “The...

    Stricter Supervisory and Enforcement Measures? European Parliament Adopts New Cybersecurity Law

    According to European Member of Parliament (MEP) Bart Groothuis, “Ransomware and...

    Geopolitical Shakedowns? The Annual ENISA Threat Landscape Report – 10th Edition

    According to EU Agency for Cybersecurity Executive Director Juhan Lepassaar, “Today's...

    A Technology-Driven Solution? Integreon Announces New Chief Executive Officer

    Subroto’s people-first leadership style combined with his passion for leveraging technology...

    A Magnet for Revenue? Magnet Forensics Announces 2022 Third Quarter Results

    According to Adam Belsher, Magnet Forensics' CEO, "Our solutions address the...

    Progress and Opportunity? Cellebrite Announces Third Quarter 2022 Results

    “We are pleased to report a solid third quarter, delivering strong...

    Fueling Continued Growth? Renovus Capital Acquires Advisory Business from HBR Consulting

    "The legal industry remains in the early stages of digital and...

    An eDiscovery Market Size Mashup: 2022-2027 Worldwide Software and Services Overview

    From retraction to resurgence and acceleration, the worldwide market for eDiscovery...

    On the Move? 2022 eDiscovery Market Kinetics: Five Areas of Interest

    Recently ComplexDiscovery was provided an opportunity to share with the eDiscovery...

    Trusting the Process? 2021 eDiscovery Processing Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    The Year in Review? 2021 eDiscovery Review Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for November 2022

    From cyber shakedowns and threats to the total cost of eDiscovery...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for October 2022

    From cyber claims and data privacy to corporate litigation and the...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for September 2022

    From privacy legislation and special masters to acquisitions and investigations, the...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for August 2022

    From AI and Big Data challenges to intriguing financial and investment...

    Onsite or Remote? Document Reviewer Preferences Survey (Winter 2023)

    Today CompexDiscovery expands that survey portfolio by introducing a new business...

    In The House? The Fall 2022 eDiscovery Total Cost of Ownership Survey – Final Results

    Today CompexDiscovery shares the results of a new business survey focused...

    Cold Front Concerns? Eighteen Observations on eDiscovery Business Confidence in the Fall of 2022

    In the fall of 2022, 49.0% of survey respondents felt that...

    Stereotyping Data? Issues Impacting eDiscovery Business Performance: A Fall 2022 Overview

    In the fall of 2022, 28.0% of respondents viewed increasing types...

    The Arrival of General Winter? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (November 21-27, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Digging Out and Digging In? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (November 14-20, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    A Liberating Momentum? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (November 7-13, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Rhetoric or Reality? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (November 1-6, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...