RFPs don’t deliver what they promise
- Claas
- Oct 10
- 3 min read
What the ideal process could be and how we settle for less
In a perfect world, an RFP would be a way to bring out the best thinking on both sides. It would invite clarity, challenge, creativity, and fresh perspectives. Clients would use it to learn. Consultants would use it to contribute, not just to comply. The whole process would build mutual understanding and result in a better decision.
But that’s not how it usually goes.
Let’s be honest: many RFPs don’t lead to the best answer. They lead to the most compliant answer. The most polished, well-formatted, deadline-friendly response. But not necessarily the most insightful, most relevant, or most valuable one.
And I say this not as a critic, but as a participant. I’ve written RFPs for clients. I’ve responded to dozens more. I’ve seen the process from both sides and I’ve come to realize that while the intent is almost always good, the structure often works against the outcome we actually want.
Where it breaks
RFPs are meant to create fairness and structure. But in doing so, they often eliminate the very ingredients that lead to the right answer: conversation, shared understanding, challenge, and co-creation.
Instead, we get:
Long lists of static requirements, phrased as obligations rather than questions
Tabular answers that reward familiarity over insight
Strict deadlines and no interaction
Evaluation schemes that reward formatting over substance
Some RFPs are clearly written by committees. You see the contradictions. The overlaps.
The tension between departments that haven’t aligned on what they actually need. And yet you’re expected to reply with precision and commit commercially, even when the client’s own thinking is still evolving.
As a consultant, you want to offer perspective. You want to say, “You might be solving the wrong problem,” or, “Have you considered approaching this differently?” But the format doesn’t allow for that. You either fill in the blanks or you’re marked down. Insight becomes a liability.
The misuse of detail
Sometimes, the RFP isn’t vague, it’s overly prescriptive. Every deliverable, every milestone, every input is predefined. But instead of clarity, what you often see is the past being relisted, dressed in future tense.
I’ve seen RFPs that are little more than the existing system written out in user story form. The client doesn’t want transformation. They want a mirror image of what they already have, just implemented by someone else.
That might be fine if the job is clearly defined delivery work. But then we should stop pretending it’s about innovation. We should call it what it is: a services contract. That would be more honest for everyone involved.
What clients actually want (but don’t ask for)
And here’s the paradox: when you speak to clients informally, they often do want challenge. They want new ideas. They want to be asked questions they hadn’t thought of. But the RFP they’ve put out is structured to prevent exactly that.
Procurement has constraints. The format is rigid. The timeframes are tight. So the consultants best positioned to help think differently are asked to play a guessing game and respond with generic, risk-free compliance.
The result? Everyone looks more similar than they actually are. Everyone plays safe. Everyone recycles boilerplate and tries to guess what tone the evaluator wants. And the client selects based on familiarity, price, or polish, rather than value, alignment, or insight.
So what can we do instead, without blowing up procurement ?
RFPs aren’t going away. Nor should they. But if we want better outcomes, we need better design not just more structure.
Some changes are simple:
Allow brief, honest conversations before submission. Even 30 minutes to align on goals can prevent weeks of misunderstanding.
Make it clear which parts of the scope are fixed and which are open to design. Don’t ask for creativity if there’s no room for it.
Judge how a team thinks, not just how well they format. Insight is harder to score, but much more valuable.
Treat the process as a way to learn, not just filter. The best RFPs refine the client’s own thinking as much as the supplier’s.
Comments