The Request for Proposals (RFP) process is fundamental procurement activity in almost all organizational sectors. It enables organizations to solicit bids for projects or services and select the most suitable vendor. For bidders, crafting a proposal in response to an RFP can be a complex and demanding task. Additionally, the potential for bias or corruption within the RFP process poses significant challenges, both for bidders and for the integrity of the procurement process. In this blog, we wanted to share our thoughts and experiences (as a frequent bidder), talk about the risks of corruption and favoritism, and some potential strategies for organizations to consider as they navigate their own RFP processes.
From the beginning, a bidder’s understanding of the requirements from an RFP is invaluable. Providing clear, detailed RFP documents that outline requirements, evaluation criteria, and the decision-making process is essential. Potential partners need to be able to grasp what is expected and how they can meet those expectations. There is often a desire from the organization to keep certain details opaque in an RFP, with budget being one detail that is almost always hidden from bidders. The thought being that organizations will write a max dollar proposal if they know what the budget is. To be fair, that is a reasonable concern… one goal of a competitive bidding process is to identify the best price afterall. As a bidder, however, it can be quite frustrating to see a scope of work that warrants a six-figure price tag, only to find out later that the organization only had $5,000 to do the work. Further, having opportunities for bidders to ask questions and receive timely, public responses ensures all bidders have access to the same information. Having these open lines of communication from the get-go can help clarify any ambiguities in the RFP document, and promote transparency throughout the process. Transparency is critical not only upfront, but especially at the end when a decision is made. Assuming the perspective of an aspiring partner that did not win the project, it is very helpful when the solicitor discloses the rationale behind the final decision, including how proposals were scored and why the winning bid was selected.
Crafting a comprehensive proposal requires significant time and effort, often involving multiple team members. On average, I don’t think folks tend to realize just how much work goes into bidding. When we respond to an RFP, our work includes not only the time it takes to review and develop responses to all aspects of the solicitation, but also the time it takes to actually submit a proposal. Oftentimes, procurement offices use submission portals that are cumbersome and not clearly laid out. A proposal can take several days to pull together, so this can be particularly burdensome for smaller organizations with limited resources. So…how can solicitors better recognize and respect applicant time? Honestly, the best practice is a simple one: do not subject every bidder to an RFP process. Rather, subject everyone to an RFQ (request for qualifications) process, as that will help weed out the under qualified organizations and save their time and energy in the process.
Be honest about your process. Being transparent, communicative, and sensitive to the time commitments of those submitting proposals is huge. I think the biggest – rather, most systemic – issue with the RFP process as a whole is that it is easily corrupted. Now, when we are talking about corruption here we don’t mean that everyone working in procurement offices are making shady deals with vendors/bidders. What we mean is that it is easy for subtle issues to ultimately bias the process. Oftentimes this manifests as unacknowledged conflicts of interest and favoritism…perhaps your organization has worked with a bidder in the past and enjoyed that experience, so you pick their proposal even if it isn’t in the best interest of the project scope. Many organizations are not bound to engage in a competitive bidding process, so they have more latitude to play favoritism. Public organizations on the other hand are required to engage in bids in good faith. As a bidder, you know that there is a chance your proposal will not be selected for any number of reasons. You recognize that you are betting on your time and effort resulting in a won contract, so losing is not that big of a deal. However, there are few feelings more frustrating than going through the process and then being left with the thought that a vendor was selected before a single proposal was even reviewed.
While the RFP process is essential for fair and competitive procurement, it presents numerous challenges for bidders and risks for organizations. As noted, competitive bidding is an irreplaceable mechanism for finding talented contractors/vendors to deliver a service. If nothing else is taken away from this reflection (and minor rant), we hope that procurement professionals consider the perspective of bidders, and reflect on whether there are ways they can increase the transparency, fairness, and quality of the solicitations being produced. By doing so, procurement professionals can help ensure a more equitable and effective process that benefits all parties involved.
What are other people saying?