Develop a 750 – 1,000 word RFP for an EHR hardware solution that would support the selected solution identified in the EHR Life Cycle Presentation assignment Custom Papers

Develop a 750 – 1,000 word RFP for an EHR hardware solution that would support the selected solution identified in the EHR Life Cycle Presentation assignment. Take on the vantage point of the informatics director at a facility in need of your solution. Yo
Refer to the following links that explain the RFP process and provide a template that can be modified to suit any situation:
Select one of your suggested solutions you identified in the EHR Life Cycle Presentation assignment.
(Choose from one these)
• Provide the end users access to the hardware within their user – focused training
• Ensure that new updates to hardware
• functionality are clearly communicated
• Set hardware with best practices in mind
Develop a 750 – 1,000 word RFP for an EHR hardware solution that would support the selected solution identified in the EHR Life Cycle Presentation assignment. Take on the vantage point of the informatics director at a facility in need of your solution. Your RFP should include, but not be limited to:

1) A brief cover letter (100-150 words).
2) Summary of company’s background information.
3) Important dates.
4) Contact names/resources for answering questions.
5) Requirements that the hardware supplier is to support.
6) Technical requirements — operating system requirements or network environment/interface needs.
7) Marketing collateral.
8) Any supporting document requirements.
9) The selection process requirements: demonstrations, presentations, testing, install, etc.

The format of this assignment should align with that of a standard RFP.

This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.

1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% 2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% 3
Satisfactory
79.00% 4
Good
87.00% 5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
10.0 % Cover Letter The information has minimally been addressed. The information provided is mostly complete and lacks specific information necessary to assist the team in understanding the importance of the proposal. The information provided is appropriate and provides specific information necessary to assist the team in understanding importance of the proposal. The information provided is complete and clear and provides specific information necessary to assist the team in understanding the importance of the proposal. The information provided is comprehensive and provides specific information necessary to assist the team in understanding the importance of the proposal.
25.0 % RFP Includes little knowledge about the topic. Subject knowledge is not evident. Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. No support is evident. Includes little knowledge about the topic with few supporting details and examples. Little subject knowledge is evident. Ignores or superficially evaluates the criteria. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Little or no effective support is evident. Includes knowledge about the topic with supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident. Surface level of evaluation of the content is offered. Some support is evident and relevant. Includes essential knowledge about the topic with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. Support is comprehensive and relevant. Covers topic in-depth with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major points of the criteria. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Significant and best possible support is evident, relevant, and convincing.
25.0 % Research No outside sources were used to support the assignment. Few outside sources were used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent. Research is adequate. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, and/or timeliness. Research is timely and relevant, and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. Research is supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.
10.0 % Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of “primer prose” indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 % Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
5.0 % Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 % Total Weightage

THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY OUR WRITERS


Order your custom answer