As a company that works with government clients, we spend a tremendous amount of time and money responding to Requests for Proposals (RFPs). We understand that governments use RFPs to ensure competitive bidding processes and to articulate their requirements. However, the process still causes enough angst for prospective bidders that, ironically, it often actually limits competition.
We wrote in a previous blog post
about the lengthy RFP procurement cycles and their impacts on the final project. Today I’d like to discuss the formats of the RFPs themselves which often cause confusion, leading to large numbers of vendor questions, which in turn leads to delayed timelines and incorrectly submitted bids. I confess that I have never been on the “other side of the table” writing an RFP and I can only imagine how difficult it must be. But I still have one simple suggestion that I wish government agencies would take prior to releasing an RFP.
Before releasing an RFP to the vendor community, I suggest that government run an internal “mock” procurement: “release” the bid to a few agency employees and ask them to respond to it. They don’t have to provide actual answers, just an outline so they can make sure they understand what the RFP requires, where responses should go, how the format works, and other structural issues. It’s important that these people had nothing to do with the writing of the RFP document itself because then they’d naturally understand what they intended when they wrote it.
Commonly confusing issues we see in RFPs include where to place a Statement of Work (in tables or in text), repeated questions, seemingly mutually exclusive statements or requirements, and “thrown in” requirements that belong in other sections and break up the flow of the response.
I think government officials would be amazed at how much confusion and time they could take out of their procurements by performing this simple quality assurance exercise. This would also reduce the number of questions the state would have to respond to and provide more focus on issues of substance rather than administrative or formatting issues. Finally, it would lead to more uniformity of responses allowing governments to evaluate responses for their merit rather than having to search for answers to their requirements.