Outcomes at a Glance

• Avoided 9 months of schedule overrun, 270 person‑months, and $3.3M in excess cost
• Identified a vendor’s proposed two‑release plan as unworkable
• Enabled selection of a vendor with both a sound technical approach and a feasible execution plan
• Improved the client’s ability to evaluate acquisition proposals using objective feasibility analysis

Context

A QSM client faced the urgent need to rebuild a major software application that was rapidly approaching obsolescence. As part of the procurement process, they issued an RFP and began evaluating vendor proposals. One vendor suggested a two‑release implementation strategy that looked promising on paper — but the proposed degree of overlap between releases raised concerns.
The client needed a reliable, data‑driven method to confirm whether the proposed cost, schedule, and release sequencing were realistic before committing to a critical acquisition.

Barriers

• No objective way to validate whether vendor bids were feasible or high‑risk
• Difficulty assessing the practicality of parallel development across releases
• High stakes: selecting the wrong vendor would risk massive schedule delays and cost overruns
• Lack of internal tools to model cost/schedule impacts from unrealistic sequencing

What QSM Delivered

Using SLIM‑Estimate, QSM conducted an independent feasibility assessment of the vendor’s proposal. The SLIM model showed:

• Release 2 was scheduled to begin before the design phase of Release 1 was complete
• This would likely cause extensive rework, lower productivity, defect amplification, and major delays
• The proposed plan would result in an estimated 9‑month slip, 270 person‑months of excess effort, and $3.3M in additional cost

With this evidence, the client rejected the unrealistic proposal and selected a vendor with a solid technical solution and an executable delivery plan, avoiding a costly acquisition failure.