RFP hell
By Jeff White: Jan 26, 2010
Filed Under: Design, Education, Jeff
Talk to anyone in “the business” and they’ll tell you they hate responding to RFPs. It’s not that we hate hard work. It’s exactly the opposite. We hate working hard on something that we know we have absolutely no chance of winning, but yet we submit anyway. To be honest, I’m not sure why, but I bet in the back of the minds of everyone doing this is the thought that they might have a chance, however small.
The trouble is, the RFP process is inherently flawed. Corporations and government organizations that issue RFPs do it because it’s easy, and it’s the process they’re used to. You can tell they’re not even trying because just about every RFP we’ve ever received includes snippets of text that are boilerplate for all of their documents. For instance, I just read an RFP for a website redevelopment effort that includes text clearly meant for a tenant in one of their properties. The passage insists that we take the property as-is, where is. Does anyone even read these things before they go out? It’s disrespectful to the firms submitting proposals. We’re expected to have absolutely perfect documents that meet all 900 crazy specifications in the RFP, printed in triplicate, but they can’t even remove requests not related to the engagement?
Half the time RFPs are written with a single proponent in mind. You can notice these because the skill request is so precise, that you can tell it’s being based off the qualifications of someone they’re already chosen, but legally have to solicit for more bids. I saw one recently that was for a social media listening project that wanted to know how many national or international conference keynotes the lead consultant had given. This was worth about 10-15% of the total merit points! Really? Why are the two even related? Because the process of issuing RFPs is so tainted that it’s just being done because organizations have to.
Then, there are the RFPs that request a key piece of work to be done as part of the response. This is wrong on so many levels. It is generally accepted amongst the design community that providing design work or concept development before the awarding of the contract constitutes what is known as spec work. This practice is considered unethical for a number of reasons. The first of which is because it is not possible for anyone to develop a concept for you without having invested considerable time in research of the requirements of the project. Since no firm would have had an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the requirements of the project, no one is qualified to offer a concept that fully takes into account your business objectives and goals. The Graphic Designers of Canada’s have this to say to business on spec creative.
Clients need to recognize the value of the agency’s portfolio and see it for what it is: examples of successful executions of projects in the past. You don’t need to see the exact solution in order to choose your design partner. The journey to achieve this solution is as important as the final product. Any agency that tells you the solution before going through a strategy and planning process is feeding you a line.
As an industry we need to encourage our clients to stop this practice. It’s demeaning, an exceeding amount of effort for limited return. I encourage clients do some research, then ask the owners of sites they like who did the work for them. Find a few of these and invite one or two companies to bid on the project. Bring them in to discuss it. If you’re going to ask for some spec creative, offer a small honorarium to compensate the businesses for their effort. I once bid on a job with the NSCC, and they offered a small amount of cash to the 4 or 5 bidders. This is a pretty enlightened thing to do.
Not that this needs to happen every time, but it does show a certain amount of respect for the agencies submitting a proposal.
Seriously though, a conversation and interview process would likely create much better work in the end as the relationship between agency and client would be far stronger.
January 26, 2010
7:25 pm
Ahhh one more thing I don’t miss from my management consulting days. You also failed to mention the deadlines…of course in your industry deadlines are like breathing.
With RFPs The redundancy, irrelevant information and sheer volume is often enough to question the value of the attempt. Think about it, there are parts of the public sector that can be easily described using those 3 words…Redundant, Irrelevant and Voluminous. Trimming the fat on the public pig might be a good way to make them realize not every company has 15 people doing a job 3 can handle.
January 26, 2010
8:10 pm
I have been saying since my very first RFP back in the day that agencies should issue RFPs, not clients. Agencies should send out RFPs to potential clients they’d like to work with asking why they want to work with us, and clients should have to submit a response explaining why they’re the perfect client, INCLUDING budgets, get shortlisted, and pitch. It would be interesting…
January 26, 2010
9:18 pm
Now THAT is a good idea, Amy. Can you imagine the backlash?
“But, we don’t have time to write a 20 page response…”
January 26, 2010
9:55 pm
“Welllllll, we don’t really HAVE a budget…”
Ahhh, RFPs. I’m sure those letters stand for something else other than request for proposal. Really fucking painful?
January 27, 2010
6:29 am
Good post. More like this needs to be said about the dreaded RFP process.
In fairness, the boilerplate, the proliferation of specs, and the overall lard demanded, is, in part, endemic to a system plagued by mistrust and cynicism. At its extreme, we were subjected to dramas like the sponsorships scandal.
There’s plenty of evidence that the public reviles even a rumoured procurement where due diligence might be questioned. Governments and public agencies, almost as a matter of routine, prepare to be cross-examined by the media, as if they were defendants awaiting sentence. Overcompensating, perhaps, is a result, a defense.
That said, I believe the public RFP process is over-larded and that it’s symptomatic of a skills/knowledge gap. That is, if the under-skilled bureaucrat puts everything in the RFP, that somehow substitutes for putting in only what’s needed. In academe, the equivalent is the wandering 5,000 word student essay that says nothing.
As a designer, I’m sure you can appreciate one of the things that differentiates the master from the student is the skill of “taking away”, of subtracting, of doing just enough and no more.
By analogy, the big, fat, uninspired RFP is probably the work of people who haven’t studied or worked on developing this design principle. Moreover, slapping together a big, fat, ugly RFP is a lot less work than “crafting” a slim, inviting RFP.
I like the interview idea and have done this several times with proponents.
I continue to struggle to write better RFPs for a local government of which I’m the Chief Administrative Officer (CA0). But, esteeming this as a special type of rhetorical design, an art, I can admit I’ve got a long way to go.
We need more critical commentary like yours and your commenters to help awaken the RFP artist within!
Thanks,
Bob
January 27, 2010
9:21 am
I recall an RFP 3 yrs ago, I took a sentence and Googled it…turns out the author of the RFP had simply copy/pasted an online RFP from another organization. It made no sense to the technology they were actually looking for!
January 31, 2010
2:06 pm
Nice article, Jeff. Very relevant to the current state of the dreaded RFP.
February 3, 2010
5:39 pm
I gave up on the RFP strategy long ago, especially government issued RFPs. I’ll bid on the odd one, but really our strategy is to simply find businesses in the industries in which we specialize who are struggling with their online initiatives and extend the offer to help. This usually results in writing a proposal for a project and competing against nobody.
Then of course, there’s always repeat business and word of mouth! This is the real way to win business, and it’s exactly how the pre-chosen winners of RFP bids came to be the pre-chosen winner to begin with.
March 3, 2010
1:57 am
Funny, how everyone in ‘the business’ knows all of this about RFPs and still goes for them.
We have won some in the past, but usually we had some sort of pre-existing relationship and level fo trust with the organization putting out the RFP.
Picking one from the tenders list and going for it – you might as well head to the Casino – you’d have a better chance at making money.
March 3, 2010
7:12 am
I know, it’s kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer–it feels so good when you stop.
April 6, 2011
9:07 pm
[...] RFP Hell (kula partners) 0 Comments [...]