| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Request for proposal |
| Length | About 960 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT436 Unit 5
Prove the Harness Before the Price Opens: An MT436 Unit 5 Request for Proposal for Vehicle Wiring Harnesses
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 5 Request for Proposal
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles, the harness families, volumes and terms are composite; the industry standards named are real, and the sources cited are real.
1. Instructions to Bidders
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles invites proposals for the supply of five families of wiring harnesses for its work utility vehicles, for a three-year term beginning with the next model year. Proposals are due at 5:00 p.m. Central time on the date in the timeline, submitted electronically in two separate files: a technical proposal and a commercial proposal. Questions must be submitted in writing by the question deadline; all questions and answers will be shared with every bidder without identifying who asked. Late or incomplete proposals will not be evaluated. Bidders may not contact Marsh Run staff other than the named purchasing contact during the process.
2. Scope of Work
The scope covers five harness families in eleven variants, with estimated annual volumes. Main dash harnesses, in standard, cab and deluxe variants, total about 2,900 a year. Engine harnesses, in gas and diesel variants, about 2,900. Lighting harnesses, in base and work-light variants, about 2,900. Cab harnesses, in heated and unheated variants, about 1,160, for the 40 percent of vehicles built with cabs. Accessory harnesses, for winch and plow kits, about 870. Volumes are estimates and do not commit Marsh Run to a quantity; monthly releases will follow the production schedule, with a three-month rolling forecast.
The supplier will build harnesses to Marsh Run's drawings, which are attached, and deliver weekly to the Muscatine plant in returnable totes.
3. Technical Requirements
All cable must meet SAE J1128 for low-voltage primary cable, in the gauges and insulation types shown on the drawings. Every connector at an exterior or underbody location must be a sealed type rated to at least IP67 for dust and water. Harnesses must support the vehicle's compliance with the lighting requirements of ANSI/OPEI B71.9 for multipurpose off-highway utility vehicles. Every circuit in every harness must be tested for continuity and correct pin-out on a test board before shipment, with the test record traceable to the harness by serial label. Wire routing, clip positions and breakout lengths must match the drawings within the stated tolerances.
Bidders must describe how they meet each requirement, the test equipment they will use and any requirement they cannot meet.
4. Quality Requirements
Before production, the supplier must submit first-article samples of each variant with dimensional and test reports. In production, the supplier must track defects found at its final test and those Marsh Run reports, and respond to any defect report with containment within 24 hours and a corrective action within 30 days. Bidders must describe their quality system and provide their defect rates for similar harnesses over the past year.
5. Commercial Requirements
Bidders must complete the attached pricing template, which asks for a unit price for each of the eleven variants at the stated volume; tooling and test-board cost, stated separately for each variant and owned by Marsh Run once paid; engineering change pricing by labor hour and by material at cost plus a stated markup; and a proposed method for adjusting price with copper costs. Prices must be held for twelve months. Payment terms are net 45.
Separating tooling and test boards from unit price lets Marsh Run compare unit prices fairly and own the boards if it later changes suppliers. Bajari and Tadelis (2001) showed that the right contract form depends on how likely the specification is to change; harness drawings change with every model update, which is why engineering change pricing is requested up front rather than negotiated case by case.
6. Evaluation Method
Proposals will be evaluated in two stages. Technical proposals are scored first, out of 60 points: technical compliance and test capability 25, quality system and defect history 20, capacity and delivery 15. Only bidders scoring at least 42 of the 60 technical points have their commercial proposals opened. Commercial proposals are then scored out of 40 points: unit price 25, tooling and test-board cost 8 and engineering change pricing 7. The highest combined score wins, subject to a site visit.
A harness that fails in a field of corn costs more than any price difference on the bid sheet, so price is opened only for bidders who have proved the harness.
Publishing the weights tells bidders where to put their effort and makes the award defensible to an unsuccessful bidder. Weber et al. (1991) found quality and delivery among the criteria buyers weight most heavily, and the technical stage reflects that.
7. Timeline
The RFP is issued in week 1. Written questions are due by the end of week 2, with answers to all bidders in week 3. Proposals are due at the end of week 5. Technical evaluation runs through week 7, with commercial proposals opened in week 8. Site visits to the top two bidders take place in week 9, and the award is made in week 10. First articles are due eight weeks after award.
Why the RFP Is Built This Way
Harnesses sit in the high-impact, low-risk quadrant of the Unit 2 spend analysis: several suppliers can build them, so competition is the right approach, but a poor harness causes warranty claims out of proportion to its price. The RFP therefore opens the field to competition while screening on technical fitness first. Monczka et al. (2021) note that a request for proposal works best when the specification is complete and the evaluation method is published in advance, both of which this document provides.
References
Bajari, P., & Tadelis, S. (2001). Incentives versus transaction costs: A theory of procurement contracts. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(3), 387-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696361
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(91)90033-R
The Purdue Global MT436 Unit 5 instructions
In Unit 5, students write a request for proposal that would let them compare suppliers fairly. Instructors expect the document organized as bidders will use it: instructions with deadlines and question rules, a scope with volumes, technical and quality requirements stated precisely enough to test, a commercial section with a pricing template, a published evaluation method and a timeline. Requirements should cite the standards that apply. The pricing template should separate items that would otherwise be hidden in unit price, such as tooling. Separating mandatory requirements from scored criteria, and scoring technical proposals before price, protects against a cheap bid that cannot meet the need. The RFP should follow from the category's position and risks.
Inside the MT436 Unit 5 example
The sample is written as a numbered RFP. Instructions set due dates, two-file submission and question rules. The scope lists the five harness families with variants and volumes. Technical requirements cite SAE J1128 cable, sealed connectors, ANSI/OPEI B71.9 lighting support and full continuity testing. A quality section sets first-article and corrective action rules. The commercial section explains its pricing template, citing Bajari and Tadelis on changing specifications. The evaluation section sets out the two-stage scoring with a technical threshold, under a highlighted line on why price opens last, and cites Weber and colleagues. A timeline and a closing section tie the RFP to the category's position, with Monczka and colleagues.
Reading the MT436 Unit 5 grading rubric
The practical test of a request for proposal is whether bidders could respond to it without asking what was meant, and whether the buyer could compare the responses. Rubrics reward requirements specific enough to verify, with the standards that apply. Credit goes to a pricing template that separates tooling and change pricing from unit price. Publishing the evaluation method and weights in advance shows fairness and earns marks. A two-stage evaluation that screens technical fitness first, when the product's failure cost is high, shows judgment. A timeline with question deadlines and award dates completes the document. Organization in the order bidders read it, with numbered sections, supports the grade.
MT436 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weak RFP describes the product in general terms and asks for best price, which invites responses that cannot be compared. Another frequent error leaves out volumes, so bidders price at different assumptions. Students often forget engineering changes, which become costly once a single supplier is chosen. Evaluation methods are frequently missing or vague. Many RFPs mix requirements bidders must meet with features they may offer, so a bidder cannot tell which gaps would disqualify it and which would only cost points. Before submitting, read your RFP from the bidder's side of the table and list every question you would need to ask before quoting. Each question on that list marks a gap the document should fill.
Get an MT436 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Describe the item or service your Unit 5 RFP will buy, the volumes, any standards it must meet and how the buyer means to choose, then add the rubric. Our first draft for you costs nothing and arrives within 24-48h, with mandatory and scored requirements separated, a fixed pricing template and the evaluation method published. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT436 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT436 Unit 1: Purchasing and Profit Board Post
- MT436 Unit 2: Spend Analysis
- MT436 Unit 3: Total Cost of Ownership Model
- MT436 Unit 4: Supplier Selection Matrix
- MT436 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT436 Unit 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT436 Unit 8: Contract Clause Review
- MT436 Unit 9: Supplier Scorecard
- MT436 Unit 10: Category Sourcing Strategy
- MT435 Unit 5: Job Scheduling Exercise
- MT434 Unit 5: Shipment Consolidation Study
- MT433 Unit 5: Currency Exposure Brief
MT436 Unit 5 questions, answered
Should an RFP reveal how bids will be evaluated?
Generally yes, at least the criteria and their weights. Bidders who know what matters write focused responses, and a published method protects the buyer if a losing bidder challenges the award. The example states a sixty-forty technical to commercial split and a technical threshold before prices are opened, so every bidder competes on the same terms.
Why ask bidders to state the copper price in their quote?
Because wire harness cost moves with copper, and quotes built on different copper assumptions cannot be compared fairly. Asking each bidder to name the price assumed lets the buyer normalize offers and sets up the price adjustment clause the eventual contract will need. The example requests it in the pricing template for exactly that reason.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries the full MT436 Unit 5 RFP for utility vehicle wiring harnesses, from instructions to the two-stage evaluation.
Why are technical proposals scored first in the MT436 Unit 5 sample?
A harness failure costs more than any likely price difference, so only bidders scoring at least 42 of 60 technical points have prices opened.
Why does the MT436 Unit 5 sample price tooling separately?
Separating tooling and test boards lets unit prices be compared fairly and lets Marsh Run own the boards if it later changes suppliers.