Stop Wasting Time: Write RFPs That Get Results

A well-crafted RFP helps you clarify your needs, align internal expectations, weed out unqualified vendors, and ultimately find the right fit. However, many organizations fall into common traps that can derail the process. Here, we highlight the top three mistakes to avoid when drafting your RFP, along with our recommendations.

Mistake #1

Writing an RFP like a Micromanager: Overly Detailed and Technical Specifications

Many organizations make the mistake of being too prescriptive, including excessive technical jargon and specifying every detail of how solutions should be implemented. This often stems from a desire to avoid surprises and a lack of trust in vendors' abilities to deliver.

Why is it a problem?

• Restrictive Requirements: Being too specific about implementation methods can exclude innovative solutions and limit the pool of potential vendors. For example, dictating the exact technology or method might prevent vendors from proposing more effective or modern solutions that could better meet your needs.
• Technical Jargon: Overloading the RFP with unnecessary technical details can overwhelm vendors and obscure core objectives. This can lead to confusion and misinterpretation, reducing the quality of the proposals you receive.

Our Recommendation:

Focus on the desired outcomes rather than the specific methods. Clearly outline your goals and allow vendors the flexibility to propose their best solutions. This approach leverages the vendors' expertise and encourages innovation. While this passion for getting deeply involved in the project's finer details is understandable, it can sometimes limit the creativity and efficiency of the process.

Mistake #2

Treating the RFP Like a Science Experiment: Rigid Evaluation Criteria

Setting overly rigid and detailed evaluation criteria in an attempt to be objective can often backfire. Organizations try to create RFPs to compare apples to apples, but this approach can mask the real decision-making factors.

Why is it a problem?

• False Objectivity: Having numerous criteria with specific weights can create a false sense of objectivity. While this might seem thorough, it often fails to capture the true capabilities and fit of a vendor.
• Ignoring Key Factors: Failing to consider important factors like vendor experience, scalability, support, and financial stability can lead to poor vendor selection. These factors are crucial to ensure that the vendor can not only deliver the project but also provide long-term support and adapt to future needs.
• Skipping Personal Interaction: Making decisions based solely on written proposals and ignoring the importance of personal interaction is a significant oversight. Collaborative work is all about relationships and cultural fit. Without meeting the vendor in person or via video, you miss the opportunity to gauge their work style, communication skills, and overall compatibility with your organization.

Our Recommendation:

Balance objective metrics with subjective judgment. Use clear criteria but also consider an intuitive sense of fit and compatibility. Personal interactions can provide valuable insights into a vendor’s compatibility with your organization. Our experience shows that the most successful partnerships are those where the decision was influenced by both concrete criteria and an intuitive sense of fit and compatibility.

Mistake #3

Playing the Budget Guessing Game: Not Specifying Budget or Considering Long-Term Costs

Failing to specify a budget and not considering the total cost of ownership (TCO) can lead to unrealistic or unmanageable proposals. Some organizations hope to receive lowball offers or believe that all proposals will align perfectly with their unspoken budget.

Why is it a problem?

• Wasting Time: Evaluating proposals based solely on initial cost without indicating the level of budget can waste everyone's time. By being clear about your budget, you help agencies focus their proposals on feasible solutions within your financial constraints.
• Long-Term Costs: Ignoring additional associated costs, such as maintenance, support, upgrades, and potential scaling costs, can lead to higher long-term expenses. Surprises such as unexpected maintenance costs and overruns are common, especially with companies that focus on small projects but incur high ongoing costs.

Our Recommendation:

Do your homework. Provide a budget range and consider all associated costs, including maintenance and support. This transparency ensures realistic proposals and fosters a collaborative partnership. If you don’t know how much to budget for this project, reach out to 3 to 5 agencies and have a conversation. This will give you a ballpark figure and help you set realistic expectations.

Now what?

Avoiding these common mistakes can significantly improve your RFP process and help you select an agency that is a perfect fit for your organization. For a deeper dive into these mistakes and more detailed recommendations, check out this full guide. By addressing these areas, you can streamline your RFP process and secure the perfect digital partner for your needs.

Need more insights on crafting an effective RFP? Contact us and we’ll help you find your perfect digital match.