Maîtrise des risques dans le processus de réponse à appel d’offres

Un appel d'offres (AO) permet à un client d’émettre une demande de travaux ou de services envers des prestataires potentiels et de faire ensuite, par analyse des réponses reçues, le choix de celui qui sera retenu. Du point de vue du soumissionnaire, il existe plusieurs risques au moment de répondre car il doit élaborer une réponse sur un développement futur. De nature différente, ces risques peuvent être regroupés en catégories. Nous proposons une typologie des risques sur laquelle nous nous appuyons afin d'assister le prestataire lors du processus de réponse à appel d’offre (PRAO) via une méthodologie d'aide à la décision fondée sur l’expérience acquise dans le déroulement des projets passés pour détecter, rendre compte et minimiser les risques du PRAO en cours

Integration of experience feedback into the product lifecycle: an approach to best respond to the bidding process

Bidding process allows a client to choose a bidder to realize an embodiment of work, supply or service. From the bidder point of view, there are several obvious risks when responding because he bets on a future development that hasn’t been yet realized. We propose to assist the bidder with decision support tools based on past experiences to detect, report and minimize these potential risks. In this paper, we present the definition of a conceptual architecture to integrate experience feedback into the product lifecycle taking into account all stages of product lifecycle to best respond new bidding processes

Analyse du cycle de vie du produit par retour d'expérience: proposition d'un outil d'assistance au processus de réponse à appel d'offres

Ce travail a pour objectif d’établir les principes d’un outil d’aide à la décision pour l’instrumentation du processus de réponse aux appels d’offre (PRAO) permettant au maître d’œuvre de conduire efficacement ce processus en minimisant les risques encourus. Le but est de définir un outil interactif utilisant l’expérience acquise dans le déroulement des projets passés pour détecter, rendre compte et minimiser les risques du processus en cours. Pour cela, nous définissons le PRAO et explicitons les différents risques susceptibles d’affecter sa réalisation, puis nous proposons une architecture intégrant ce processus et le retour d’expérience (REX). Enfin, nous définissons une instrumentation de cette méthodologie à partir d’un outil informatique, nommé BP_IAT (Bid Process Interactive Analysis Tool), permettant de prendre en compte les expériences passées pour répondre à un nouvel appel d’offre en minimisant les risques potentiels lors du choix d’un concept de la solution en cours de développement

Gestion des risques par retour d'expérience dans le processus de réponse à appel d'offres

Un appel d'offres (AO) est une procédure qui permet au maître d'ouvrage (MOA) de faire le choix du prestataire ou maître d'œuvre (MOE) à qui il confiera une réalisation de travaux, fournitures ou services. Cette pratique, incontournable pour quasiment tous les secteurs professionnels, repose sur la mise en concurrence de prestataires potentiels vis-à-vis d'une demande client. Chaque répondant engage des ressources et du temps pour élaborer des propositions qui ne seront pas toujours retenues. Le processus de réponse à appel d'offres (PRAO) est fortement contraint car, pour être acceptées, les propositions doivent satisfaire aux exigences du Cahier des Charges (CdC) tout en restant économiquement viables pour le prestataire. Le PRAO est une pratique risquée. De façon générale, le premier niveau de risque est de ne pas répondre à l'AO et d'écarter un projet intéressant sur le plan technique et/ou économique ; ensuite, si la décision a été de répondre, un deuxième risque est de ne pas être accepté par le client ; enfin, en cas d'acceptation, si la proposition a été mal élaborée à cause d'une appréciation incorrecte par le prestataire des difficultés sous-tendues par la réalisation, celui-ci peut s'engager dans un processus très pénalisant (dépassements de budgets, non conformités aux exigences techniques, non-respect des délais,…). Afin de minimiser ces risques, nous proposons dans ce travail une amélioration du processus de réponse à appel d'offres (PRAO) par la mise en place d'une instrumentation renforçant ce processus et la définition d'une méthodologie de conduite adaptée. L'objectif est de fournir au MOE des outils d'aide à la décision pour détecter, rendre compte et minimiser les risques potentiels. La démarche consiste à adosser au PRAO un système de retour d'expérience, portant sur les PRAO passés et sur les cycles de développement associés, couplé à une démarche structurée de gestion des risques afin d'offrir au soumissionnaire les appuis nécessaires à la construction d‘une réponse « robuste » à l'AO. Cette instrumentation du cadre de travail du souscripteur et la proposition de conduite associée forment le socle de la méthodologie BiPRiM (Bidding Process Risk Management) que nous avons développée. Nous proposons dans celle-ci la mise en œuvre pratique des modèles de risques et d'expériences PRAO que nous avons développés ; nous nous appuyons sur les mécanismes d'acquisition, de traitement et d'exploitation du système de retour d'expérience sous-jacent pour conduire le processus de gestion des risques PRAO et, en élargissant, le processus décisionnel qui supporte le PRAO. ABSTRACT : Call for tenders is a procedure that allows a client company to choose the provider of works, supplies or services. This practice is essential for almost all industry sectors and is based on the competition of potential providers according to a client request. Each bidder commits ressources and time to develop proposals that will not always be accepted. Bidding Process (BP) is highly constrained because, to be accepted, proposals must meet the client requirements while remaining economically viable for the provider. BP is a risky practice. In general, the first risk level is related to the choice of not responding to a call for tenders whereas it was an opportunity (i.e. an interesting project on technical and/or economic terms). Then, if the decision was to respond, a second risk level is not to be accepted by the client; finally, when the tender is accepted, a third risk level is related to the proposal realization potential problems. Indeed, if the related offer was poorly developed, due to an incorrect assessment by the bidder of the difficulties of the underlying realization, the bidder can be engaged in a very penalizing process (overruns, non-compliance of technical requirements, non-compliance of deadlines...). In order to minimize these risks, an improvement of BP has been proposed by setting up an instrumentation reinforcing this process and by the definition of a methodology for its appropriate management. The objective is therefore to provide to the bidder decision support tools to detect, report and minimize potential risks. The approach consists in the integration to the BP of an experience feedback system involving past bidding processes and associated development cycles, coupled with a structured approach of risk management to provide to the bidder the necessary support for the development of a "robust" response to new calls for tenders. This proposed bidder decision support system instrumentation and the associated management process establish the basis of the BiPRiM methodology (Bidding Process Risk Management) that was developed. In this development, a practical implementation of risk models and BP experiences has been developed. It rests upon the mechanisms of acquisition, processing and exploitation of the underlying experience feedback system in order to conduct the risk management process in the BP while broadening the associated decision-making process

Modèle des risques pour les soumissionnaires aux appels d’offres

Le principe global d’un appel d’offres (AO) est l’expression par un client d’une demande de travail ou de service puis, sur retour des réponses des soumissionnaires, le choix du prestataire qui sera retenu. Pour les soumissionnaires, il existe plusieurs risques lorsqu'ils répondent parce qu'ils doivent formuler une réponse basée sur un développement futur. De plusieurs types, ces risques doivent être caractérisés afin de mieux les identifier et de les prendre en compte pour la mise en œuvre d’une méthodologie de gestion des risques. Nous proposons une caractérisation des risques dans le contexte du processus de réponse à appel d’offres (PRAO) via un modèle multi-composante, sur lequel nous nous appuyons pour renseigner les risques lors d’un PRAO. Nous présentons ensuite la démarche générale qui s’appuie sur ce modèle de risques PRAO et qui intègre un processus de retour d’expérience (REx) à la gestion des risques

Risk analysis in project early phase taking into account the product lifecycle: Towards a generic risk typology for bidding process

During the project early phase, considering a bidding process (BP), a client makes a request for a work or service to potential providers and then he chooses, by analyzing the responses, the one that will be accepted. From the bidder point of view, there are several risks when responding because he must develop a response based on a future development. Different in nature, these risks can be grouped into different categories. We propose a risk typology throughout the product lifecycle on which we rely to assist the bidder during BP via a methodology for decision support based on the experience acquired during past projects in order to detect, report and minimize the risks in current BP

Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Health system planning requires careful assessment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) epidemiology, but data for morbidity and mortality of this disease are scarce or non-existent in many countries. We estimated the global, regional, and national burden of CKD, as well as the burden of cardiovascular disease and gout attributable to impaired kidney function, for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. We use the term CKD to refer to the morbidity and mortality that can be directly attributed to all stages of CKD, and we use the term impaired kidney function to refer to the additional risk of CKD from cardiovascular disease and gout. Methods The main data sources we used were published literature, vital registration systems, end-stage kidney disease registries, and household surveys. Estimates of CKD burden were produced using a Cause of Death Ensemble model and a Bayesian meta-regression analytical tool, and included incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). A comparative risk assessment approach was used to estimate the proportion of cardiovascular diseases and gout burden attributable to impaired kidney function. Findings Globally, in 2017, 1·2 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1·2 to 1·3) people died from CKD. The global all-age mortality rate from CKD increased 41·5% (95% UI 35·2 to 46·5) between 1990 and 2017, although there was no significant change in the age-standardised mortality rate (2·8%, −1·5 to 6·3). In 2017, 697·5 million (95% UI 649·2 to 752·0) cases of all-stage CKD were recorded, for a global prevalence of 9·1% (8·5 to 9·8). The global all-age prevalence of CKD increased 29·3% (95% UI 26·4 to 32·6) since 1990, whereas the age-standardised prevalence remained stable (1·2%, −1·1 to 3·5). CKD resulted in 35·8 million (95% UI 33·7 to 38·0) DALYs in 2017, with diabetic nephropathy accounting for almost a third of DALYs. Most of the burden of CKD was concentrated in the three lowest quintiles of Socio-demographic Index (SDI). In several regions, particularly Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, the burden of CKD was much higher than expected for the level of development, whereas the disease burden in western, eastern, and central sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia, south Asia, central and eastern Europe, Australasia, and western Europe was lower than expected. 1·4 million (95% UI 1·2 to 1·6) cardiovascular disease-related deaths and 25·3 million (22·2 to 28·9) cardiovascular disease DALYs were attributable to impaired kidney function. Interpretation Kidney disease has a major effect on global health, both as a direct cause of global morbidity and mortality and as an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. CKD is largely preventable and treatable and deserves greater attention in global health policy decision making, particularly in locations with low and middle SDI

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality : methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.Peer reviewe

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health: all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 has targeted elimination of preventable child mortality, reduction of neonatal death to less than 12 per 1000 livebirths, and reduction of death of children younger than 5 years to less than 25 per 1000 livebirths, for each country by 2030. To understand current rates, recent trends, and potential trajectories of child mortality for the next decade, we present the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 findings for all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in children younger than 5 years of age, with multiple scenarios for child mortality in 2030 that include the consideration of potential effects of COVID-19, and a novel framework for quantifying optimal child survival. Methods We completed all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality analyses from 204 countries and territories for detailed age groups separately, with aggregated mortality probabilities per 1000 livebirths computed for neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and under-5 mortality rate (USMR). Scenarios for 2030 represent different potential trajectories, notably including potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of improvements preferentially targeting neonatal survival. Optimal child survival metrics were developed by age, sex, and cause of death across all GBD location-years. The first metric is a global optimum and is based on the lowest observed mortality, and the second is a survival potential frontier that is based on stochastic frontier analysis of observed mortality and Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Findings Global U5MR decreased from 71.2 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% uncertainty interval WI] 68.3-74-0) in 2000 to 37.1 (33.2-41.7) in 2019 while global NMR correspondingly declined more slowly from 28.0 deaths per 1000 live births (26.8-29-5) in 2000 to 17.9 (16.3-19-8) in 2019. In 2019,136 (67%) of 204 countries had a USMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold and 133 (65%) had an NMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold, and the reference scenario suggests that by 2030,154 (75%) of all countries could meet the U5MR targets, and 139 (68%) could meet the NMR targets. Deaths of children younger than 5 years totalled 9.65 million (95% UI 9.05-10.30) in 2000 and 5.05 million (4.27-6.02) in 2019, with the neonatal fraction of these deaths increasing from 39% (3.76 million 95% UI 3.53-4.021) in 2000 to 48% (2.42 million; 2.06-2.86) in 2019. NMR and U5MR were generally higher in males than in females, although there was no statistically significant difference at the global level. Neonatal disorders remained the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years in 2019, followed by lower respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, congenital birth defects, and malaria. The global optimum analysis suggests NMR could be reduced to as low as 0.80 (95% UI 0.71-0.86) deaths per 1000 livebirths and U5MR to 1.44 (95% UI 1-27-1.58) deaths per 1000 livebirths, and in 2019, there were as many as 1.87 million (95% UI 1-35-2.58; 37% 95% UI 32-43]) of 5.05 million more deaths of children younger than 5 years than the survival potential frontier. Interpretation Global child mortality declined by almost half between 2000 and 2019, but progress remains slower in neonates and 65 (32%) of 204 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, are not on track to meet either SDG 3.2 target by 2030. Focused improvements in perinatal and newborn care, continued and expanded delivery of essential interventions such as vaccination and infection prevention, an enhanced focus on equity, continued focus on poverty reduction and education, and investment in strengthening health systems across the development spectrum have the potential to substantially improve USMR. Given the widespread effects of COVID-19, considerable effort will be required to maintain and accelerate progress. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd