If we had had to award the bid based solely on overall project-based approach to the infrastructure, we might be inclined to work with Microsoft. NT would have been the primary application server in the satellites and branch offices. Microsoft had a solid story to tell about the infrastructure, covering everything from server clusters through leveraging VPNs. Microsoft dispelled the myth that it cannot do business at the enterprise level. AppLogistics has Sun products at the headquarters and we intend to leverage that investment and continue to use it as the corporate warehouse server. NT may or may not scale for the largest databases and transaction rates. However, for AppLogistics, this debate is immaterial. NT can certainly handle most of the anticipated load. If the high end turns out to be a concern, NT can certainly integrate with a minimum of fuss.

But Microsoft's application solution relies too heavily on a high-risk proposition--that AppLogistics' staff and some consultants can develop a best-of-breed solution. In addition, as architected, it simply runs in the opposite direction from our goal--almost $750,000 spent on Office97 does not add up to an intranet thin client.

Netscape is a close runner-up with its SuiteSpot and Communicator products. However, withou t a compelling vertical application, we cannot justify a new development effort based on a minimal project plan. Novell also lacked a vertical application and did not convince us that it would create a better application for Oracle than NT. Novell's groupware solution was compelling, especially since any browser can get at it. But given the deficit of any type of application solution and without the infrastructure to support NetWare, it is difficult to wedge in GroupWise.

Hence, our dilemma. It came down to choosing between Oracle's packaged applications and either Microsoft or Netscape's roll-your-own approach. Our application evaluation selected Oracle. Oracle's lack of pricing forced a thumbs down. Microsoft's over-infatuation with Office and its lack of an application partner defeated its best efforts.

Presented here in alphabetical order are the edited RFP summaries presented by the vendors and our detailed evaluations of each of their proposals.