The nature and causes of the problems that have been encountered with RFPs has varied. Generally, an RFP is more time-consuming for both suppliers and customers than is a tender. Efforts to cram an RFP process into a limited time period are likely to give rise to problems down the line.
The evaluation process is rarely as straightforward as originally imagined. Invariably trade-offs must be made among competing objectives. Not infrequently, it is learned only during evaluations that the original specifications should have been set differently, and that the criteria that were originally assumed would serve as a proper basis for the selection of the best supplier, are in fact not the criteria that should be used.
Obviously at that stage, it is virtually impossible to correct the error.
A second cause of problems is the tendency to focus too much on particular items rather than the big picture.
For instance, in one RFP I looked at pertaining to the provision of remote air transportation services, almost as much space was devoted in the initial RFP documents to catering services as to describing the actual air service requirements.
In part, difficulties have been encountered due to overuse of the RFP method.
It is frequently adopted not where the contracting authority wishes to consider a wide range of different forms of supply, but where that authority is uncertain as to what is required.
To some extent, such usage is inevitable since in many cases contracting authorities must purchase items that require ordering only infrequently.
However, one cannot help but wonder how many times an RFP is employed because of a decision to carry out the type of research necessary to produce a proper specification.
It is not uncommon to see an institution hire a consultant or consulting group to assist it in production of the RFP.
Over the last 10 years I have worked with many different municipalities writing RFPs for construction as well as goods and services. In some cases I was asked to provide a complete package, in others, I merely guided the contracting authority to produce its own final document.
The greater level of involvement of the consultant in the RFP documentation, the stronger the argument for retaining the consultant as part of the project management team.
In my opinion, the continued involvement of any consultant who has played a prominent role in the development of the RFP is often crucial to maintaining consistency in the project management process.
If such an arrangement seems likely, then the greater must be the consultant’s understanding of the project management process. Merely technical expertise by itself is not sufficient.
As I have mentioned in previous articles, the biggest problem encountered is over-reliance on the use of boilerplate RFPs, the type of one-size-fits-all documents that can be completed by simply filling in the blanks.
While the use of precedents is natural, all RFP documents need to be tailored to the specific requirements of the competition to which they relate.
Where conformity is exaggerated, there is a risk the document will not be properly integrated with the specific needs of the project. It is well worth the time and money to hire a professional purchasing consultant to have a second set of eyes on these types of RFPs to make sure the intent of the RFP is abundantly clear to the contractor bidding the project.
When drawing up specifications (particularly for an RFP) it is best to focus on the problem to be solved rather than on trying to prescribe a method of solving the municipality’s problem.
The very decision to use an RFP should be dictated by the fact there are different types of products or services in the market that can be used to solve the problem.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at swbauld@purchasingci.com.
Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed