RFP’s suck! There you have it. The truth! You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. They completely fucking suck and if my use of the f-bomb just offended you, then you’re prolly one of the very few who likes using them or doesn’t mind responding to them. Cause only a tight-ass with self-esteem issues is a fan of the RFP process. RFP’s are bureuacratic tools designed to fuck with sales people and give control to people who normally don’t have any. RFP’s provide little value to anyone, including those that use them.
So now, let me tell you what I really think. LOL!
RFP’s (Requests for Proposals) were invented to make the life of procurement easier and to provide the most amazing CYA (cover your ass) ever invented. They weren’t invented to identify the best solution to the problem an organization was struggling with. RFP’s are laden with all kinds of crap that does little to align a solution with the actual objectives of the department or organization that is making the decision. They are far too often a list of features which end up disqualifying killer solutions and qualified vendors for trivial and unrelated reasons. Making matters worse, most RFP’s and those managing them attempt to scuttle engagement and any type of interaction with the vendors, doing everything they can to prohibit vendors from connecting with the business owner, the technical owner and anyone else involved in the effort other than them. All of this dooming the process for failure and extending it far longer than it needs to be.
The RFP’s time as come. Let’s take the sucker behind the shed and do what should have been done a long time ago.
Once we, we being the proverbial procurement industry, gets the guts to put the RFP out of it’s misery, we need to go back to the drawing board, that is IF you feel compelled to have some sort of formal buying process that doesn’t put everyone through their paces, then let’s at least create something that increases the chances of your company getting a damn good solution (not a product) and the vendors aren’t wasting their time.
How’s that sound to everyone, good? It sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
What would a RFP process that doesn’t suck, look like? I’m thinking something like this;
Business Goals, Objectives and Success Measurements –
Rather than creating RFP’s with a list of “required” features, let’s start with what it is the organization is trying to accomplish. What are the goals of the organization? Are you trying to shorten your supply chain? Are you trying to improve customer retention? Do you need to increase ticket sales? Do you need to minimize risk exposure? What is it you are trying to do? How will you know you’ve gotten there? How will success be measured? What does the new state of your environment look like? Let’s start there. Let’s create RFPs that start with the business problem(s) and the desired goals first. Features don’t mean shit, if they aren’t attached to real, measurable business problems AND the vendors need to know what those are.
Why?
Why is change important, why does it matter?
Once the business goals, objectives and success measurements have been laid out, list why change. Why do you need a new solution? Why is the current environment or solution no longer adequate? Why is there a need for something new? What is there motivation for change? What’s wrong with the status quo, etc? Helping vendors understand the motives behind the change is critical. With out the motive, the “right solution” could be missed. (This is a great story that illustrates my point, no RFP was going to accomplish this).
More Engagement
There needs to be more engagement between the vendors and the companies requesting a proposal. The idea that keeping vendors at bay is good for the process is ridiculous and counter productive. Identifying the best solution requires thorough engagement and access to information. Keeping vendors at bay only strangles the flow of information and stifles creativity, innovation and the ability to develop the best solution.
I don’t want to burst your bubble, but the other reason engagement is critical is you’re not the expert. As much as you like to think you know what you need and know what you want, you don’t and shutting out your vendors only ensures you don’t get the best solution you need. You’re in the insurance, router, CRM, telecom, marketing, dairy, sporting goods, ski, movie production, etc business. Odds are the purchase you are considering IS NOT in your core competency. Therefore, you are not the expert and you don’t know what you need cause you don’t know what exists. Let your vendors be your teacher. Let your vendors educate you. Don’t push them away, get them as close as you can. It’s their expertise you want and need. Instead of getting good at keeping vendors at bay, get good at managing them, ferreting out the sharks and embracing the consultants.
Get Rid of Feature Check Lists –
There are no feature deal killers. Cut it out! There can be solution deal killers, but just because a solution doesn’t have a particular feature doesn’t mean it’s not the right solution. The key is to create decision criteria based on problems solved AND based on the impact of solving a problem. Missing three “must have features” is of no consequence if the solution solves 3 of the most pressing issues, problems facing the organization and even more importantly if the solution achieves the desired outcomes, goals and objectives.
Feature checklists are distractions, tools of mass destruction, and political weapons that will undermine the decision process. Don’t get distracted by the shiny little objects. Stay focused on problem solving and solution development. That’s why you’re here in the first place.
Ask for a Solution;
It’s time we give vendors the opportunity to solve your problems not deliver a check list of features. Imagine if an RFP was more like a problem solving game. (This post “Skip The Water” by VC Fred Wilson, illustrates EXACTLY what I mean and is the perfect anecdote or metaphor for why RFP’s suck, go read it). Imagine the creativity and innovation a company might cultivate and find. Rather than asking vendors to deliver a templated list of features and answer a bunch of questions, imagine if after laying out all the above, they asked vendors to submit a solution to their problem. Imagine if the key question in the RFP was, “How would you solve this problem?” Now we’d be getting somewhere – Skip the Water!.
RFP’s need to go or at the very least need to be redesigned. They need to be focused on identifying the best solution to a real business problem NOT to finding the product or offering with the most features. They have to be engaging and maximize the flow of information between vendors and the companies, not isolating and divisive.
Most RFP’s are crap. I almost always recommend to my clients that they don’t respond. They are time consuming, they rarely allow for the best solution to win and they don’t engender the best working relationships.
So procurement, let’s make a deal. You get rid of RFP’s or at least change them into something conducive to business and we the sales people will stop peddling cheap solutions that don’t work for you.
What do you say, deal?
Jim… you are right on the money… RFP are silly, stupid, and dis-serve both vendor and prospect..THIS is why you were selected as one of the top 30 sales consultants!
My sense RFPs will change when leadership changes and recognizes the alignment of the solution to their current strategy, structure, processes, rewards and people. I know of one large firm that has taken a more results oriented approach to RFPs. In many cases,there are both state and federal laws that require RFPs.
Also let us not forget that for the majority of small businesses (those under 20 employees) they do not engage in the proposal writing business. They have learned RFPs in many of those instances are used to shop prices and award the contract to an existing vendor.
Smart small business owners decline to participate in this type of award process and look for new clients who value relationships and results. Years ago I realized I was in sales business and not proposal writing business so I stopped engaging in responding to RFPs.
Your forthright condemnation of RFPs is accurate and this too will take time to change.
Couldn’t agree more with you Jim. I NEVER, EVER respond to RFPs although I did when I first started my business. It didn’t take me long to figure out the odds of winning the business were slim to none, even I was fortunate enough to speak with the issuer.
A good friend of mine used to be a government purchasing agent for the province and he told me that agents spent more time figuring out how to cover their ass in case something went wrong instead of finding the best solution or vendor. Tells you what is really important, doesn’t it?
CYA my man, CYA. That’s a leadership problem. I’m seeing a pattern. 😉 Thanks brother.
Hey Jim, don’t beat around the bush man. Just say what you think!
Actually, although I agree with much of what you say, I have many clients–a significant number–who could not stay in business if they rejected the RFI/RFQ/RFP process. For a few examples–they are selling complex solutions to big Pharma, they are selling logistics nationally and internationally, and/or they are selling services to local, state, or federal government. If you can get all the business you want without responding to RFPs, by all means do it. But if that approach keeps you too small or limits your scope of opportunity, you need to learn how to decide what RFPs you might respond to.
I have worked with clients on some amazingly good RFPs that clearly stated how the RFP related to their corporate strategy. I have seen many that asked questions like “what is your philosophy about this kind of work” or “how will you manage communications with us.” It’s not one size fits all.There is a huge range of expertise from highly expert to down-right dumb.
If you are in an RFP-intense industry, and you want to play big in that industry, get to know procurement officers AND end users before the RFPs come out. Don’t reply to RFPs that come in over the transom where you’ve never had any prior relationships. Don’t reply if the time is too short or if the requirements are stupid or if you just don’t fit. Don’t reply if they’re clearly holding a price war and you are not a lowest-price bidder. Don’t reply if you can’t figure out why they would change from their current provider to you.
All of your good sales instincts need to be active in an RFP process–you don’t leave your brains at the door.
I have helped for-profit clients win multi-millions of contracts through RFPs with the US armed forces, FEMA, National Science Foundation, US Department of Education, SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research), 21st Century funds for education and economic development and many large corporations. If your clients have a complex sale in which the design of a solution requires considerable expertise, in which the risk of failure for the customer is high, they really should learn how to sort out the awful RFPs from the ones that could move their business forward.
Now, from the perspective of the people who write RFPs, they can and should learn to do better in many cases. Too often they don’t get what they really want or need. But from the perspective of the service providers, we need to choose carefully where we play.
One more thought to keep in mind–the RFP is NEVER about getting the best possible solution. It is about getting the safest solution that will work.
Boom!!!! Barbara, great insight and I have to agree with your there are just some instances where the price to play is an RFP and that sucks.
Your last sentence is brilliant and arguably WHY RFP’s exist in my opinion — “the RFP is NEVER about getting the best possible solution. It is about getting the safest solution that will work.” Playing it safe is a losers game, that’s prolly why they don’t sit well with me. Playing it safe funnels all the way up to culture, leadership and more and it smells. Ugh.
Great comment BWS, you rock!
Thanks Jim!
I will offer one more caveat. If you are buying emergency communications for FEMA, or language and culture training for the Marines, or landing gear for the Air Force, or if you are manufacturing prescription drugs and need to protect your supply chain, –then safety has to be a big concern. Safety being defined as safety of the people you are charged with serving.
It is often about CYA but it is not only about CYA. It is sometimes about soliciting the most responsible response to a very complex problem.
Barbara and Jim, with respect, as someone who has sat on both sides of the desk and just moved to the buyer’s side again (and responded as such separately), I have to take exception to the statement that an RFP is never about getting the best possible solution. Mine always are. I don’t think Sellers ought to whitewash Buyers any more than we’d want Buyers to whitewash Sellers. If I’m buying, I am looking for the best possible solution that is going to produce the results I need, within the parameters of my project.
Mike, I concur with what you are saying. I am responding from a place that often the sellers are all about their bright shiny objects and what the buyer needs is a little less glitter and a little more safety. “Best possible solution that is going to produce the results I need”, as you said, not “most amazing, never-before-seen can-do everything” solution that is possibly (1) MORE than you need, (2) SCARIER than you need, (3) MORE EXPENSIVE than you need.
Mike – I appreciate your position and love that you are so considered in your RFP approach. But you’re definitely an outlier there, no?
I probably am, Maureen, and possibly because I sat on both sides of the desk. But I’ll say this… as Sellers, we can whine about RFPs, we can decide not to engage with them, or we can figure out how to win them. The best strategy, as always, probably depends on context and nuance… it’s great to have the luxury of not needing to respond, but in some industries, avoiding them is quota suicide. I know organizations that don’t get to help write the RFPs, yet win a large percentage. To me, that seems like a smarter alternative – but as always, just one man’s opinion.
No question, RFPs are a joke. They are a bureaucratic way of creating a purchasing process that dumbs everyone down to the lowest possible denominator – price. It also provides a clever way to cut out fast-talking, donut-delivering, wannabe salespeople. Hmmm….perhaps that is its one redeeming quality. But, professional salespeople that can provide valuable insight and expertise get cut out, too, and that is a shame.
Count me in. I don’t respond, and I counsel clients not to respond, if possible. Unfortunately, some industries don’t provide that option (think public sector, especially construction). KSR
Good post, Jim.
As a buyer, I think sales reps often secretly hate me. 😉 I am worse than the reported buyers that are 57% through their decision, I’m usually much further along. And I always start with a basic RFI or RFP. I rarely schedule or accept a sales call or meeting to talk about something I am not already thinking about. I may research it on my own and re-engage later, but as a buyer, I find I often have a huge bulls-eye painted on my back, and I could waste endless hours talking with reps about products/services that I just am not ready for, don’t need, don’t fit, or I don’t have budget for. I also don’t think it’s fair to reps, and do not aim to increase the No Decision / Pipeline Fluff problem the industry is facing.
In my defense, however, and the things that most reps tell me that they respect after the fact, is that I certainly don’t use an RFP as a screen to play games, do CYA, or disengage… all of which seems completely ridiculous to me. I do use it as a starting point to let multiple possible solution providers know what’s most important to me, at one time (convenient and easier for me, which counts).
Then, based on responses to my knock-out questions (they should all pass based on my initial analysis, but I double-check anyway), I begin the final decision process which includes letting reps clarify any misconceptions I have formed (if any) during my research, tell me how their solution meets or exceeds my minimum requirements and my technical or specific feature requirements (yes, there sometimes ARE some feature/product requirements and I can elaborate if you want to hear), and generally how their solution can best address my needs. I answer any and all questions, offer a lot of background information, info about internal contacts and varying needs/perceptions, and always tell them what obstacles they are likely to face in selling their solution.
Sounds like we’re in 99% agreement, though, although I do think there are times that a feature or process or something specific about a solution really matters. If I am looking for a psychometric assessment for hiring, and yours is ipsative, I’m not buying it.
Anyway, hope this adds some value, and I agree with your recommendations and wish more buyers were thinking this way.
Hey Keenan, although you may be right about RFPs, it doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is that many buyers and organizations believe RFPs provide high value to their buying process. Mike Kunkle thinks so and Mike is a very bright guy. As long as organizations believe RFPs facilitate their buying process, sales organizations who want their business will have to contend with the buyer’s rules of engagement.
We hate RFPs with good reason as you so clearly articulated in your rant. By the way, you have the makings for a great stand up act. They interfere with the way we want to to sell. We want to control the sale. We want the buyer’s complete transparency during discovery, We want to be heroes who generate value, insights and opportunity for the buyer that takes their organization to new levels of improvement they never imagined possible. RFPs block our visions of grandeur and we don’t like that,
Salespeople should never write an RFP. Yesterday, I had lunch with a young sales friend who just moved to a new company where he does not have to write proposals. He did write them at his previous company, which was among his top 3 reasons for changing positions.
Salespeople writing proposals loses money for sales organizations. Ideally, salespeople should spend 100% of their time engaging customers and prospects, yet we hear numbers as low as 35%. Suppose you expect your salespeople to earn $500K of net income on $1 million in gross sales. If they work 50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, they earn you $200 per hour. Why would you give your sales team clerical work to do? Train non-salespeople to write proposals and help your salespeople get inside the buyers offices and minds. Develop such strong bonds with the buying team that they practically write the RFP for you because they want your goods and services, and your team working with their team.
If we could change the buyer’s buying process, selling would be a walk in the park. As that’s unlikely to happen, we need to adapt to the buyers’ playing fields if we want to win.
I’ll take a left turn and say I love a good RFP… when as the salesperson I’m the person who helped the procurement team write it!
Yes that’s right, if there is an RFP required (see Gary & Mike’s responses below) – Prior to the RFP being issued I want to work with the end-user, purchaser, stake holders, etc to make sure it is written to tie business goals into the solution being asked for.
Of course – assisting in the RFP writing process also puts a salesperson into a much better position of winning it too.
Interesting comment, as that is a direction I am reinforcing with our sales people. Offering guidance to help write the rfp. Problem is it can be seen as a conflict of interest, but procurement people aren’t stupid, they just need help.
Interesting article Jim. I don’t think you’ll get many buyers to agree with this statement, “It’s time we give vendors the opportunity to solve your problems not deliver a check list of features. Imagine if an RFP was more like a problem solving game.” The reason why is that salespeople do not have a fudiciary role. They are, in the end, beholden only to their interests. We as salespeople are not objective. It’s not that we won’t try to help give honest guidance, it’s that we can’t give objective guidance.
The other factor is that salespeople are not equipped to analyze a situation and provide alternative approaches each with pros and cons, along with final recommendations. This is what consultants are paid to do. Consultants have a fudiciary role and they can spend the time needed to delve into the buyer’s problem. They also have the training and back-ground from a business point of view.
And last, Just because an RFP primarily lists features, we can’t assume that a full evaluation of needs was not performed. Buyers are savvy. They can figure out what they need from a broad prospective then boil it down into a list of features.
Nancy brilliant comment, lots of interesting points, I’m on the slope, but will drop my two cents in a bit. Well stated though Nancy!
//keenan
I agree with you on one point – salespeople are not equipped to analyze a situation… But that’s exactly what you are doing when you provide a list of features – primary or otherwise.
Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. You have a problem. You need that problem solved. That’s where you should be starting with your consultants. Buyers *think* they are savvy. But they only know what they’ve seen – and that’s only a small portion of what’s available. They also have no idea how much custom solutions cost – or what is the most cost effective way of solving a problem.
OTOH, if you explain your problem thoroughly and let the consultant provide a solution to that problem, not only will you get solutions which better solve your problem, but those solutions are likely to be cheaper.
I have a limited amount of time to review and decide on which RFP’s to bid on. I’ve walked away from too many RFP’s because they contain ridiculous “features” which add nothing to the solution but make the implementation much harder (and more costly). They’re just a waste of time.
“I’ve walked away from too many RFP’s because they contain ridiculous “features” which add nothing to the solution but make the implementation much harder (and more costly). They’re just a waste of time.” — BOOM!!!
Ya nailed it there Jerry. If vendors are walking away because the RFP is perceived as out of touch or not solution oriented, buyers are NOT going to get the best solution. RFP’s are a buyer problem as much as they are a seller problem. Great comment Jerry!
//keenan
Halleluja
How wrong can you be, Jim: RFP’s are a gift thrown at us, sales people. It tells us exactly what the competition is going to offer! And it is a great starting point to start asking questions to your client. Okay, maybe if they are not willing to engage the interaction, you still should let go of the RFP. But in most cases if you respond with some excellent questions, your client will wake up, notice you and you are halfway landing that order.
Dirk, love the enthusiasm and positive approach. If an RFP contains many of the elements discussed in the post, I agree with you. Unfortunately, too few vendors create RFP’s in that manner.
//keenan
As always, know your audience and how the competition will be evaluated. Many RFPs we respond to are a “tick mark” exercise where you have to go for the points to win. Therefore if you elect not to answer the question or answer with a question you get “nil”. We try to make sure we score high marks even if it means giving them what they ask for even though its not what they need to know, and then send out relationship managers to luncheon key people to build support. We are smart and we win. There, you can have that for free.
I’m late to the party but since I elect to be anonymous and can vent with impunity, I will say that the MAJORITY of rfps I receive have been half-assed chronically disorganized and ill constructed attempts at trying to understand what is important about the service they want to buy, written by someone who doesn’t get what they are buying and what is important to know about what they are buying, yet are empowered and disrespectful enough to issue an ill constructed, chronically disorganized document with a dandretic web of instructions that takes more time to deconstruct and analyze what they are trying to get at than actually providing the information they NEED to know. Usually the longer the RFP the worse of a dogs dinner it is. I call these documents a treasure hunt of ineptitude and the people who issue them are wankers. An electric regulator’s legal service one is a recent example. Wicked. They could have saved themselves DAYS of putting this useless piece of claptrap RFP together by telling us the types of service they needed, the volume of business they were currently outsourcing and why they were doing a search. Kind of what you have set out in your good article. I think it was a CYA exercise as the incumbent was a shoe in. I hope they love the shoe in as we’ll never do another of their RFPs.