Category Archives: RFX

Why Create RFP Hell?

Over ten (10) years ago, over on the LawMarketing Blog, Larry Bodine asked Why Go to RFP Hell? in response to a fellow lawyer who asked how her firm could get more RFPs for legal work from corporations. This question is as relevant today as it was then.

As Mr. Bodine quite astutely noted, RFPs are onerous chores leading to hideous events where clients get the chance to dictate terms, chisel down your fees and turn you into a fungible commodity. Nobody wants to be fungible. Moreover, RFPs were liked to competing to be the first to be hanged.

Why? RFPs were typically 50-page monstrosities divided into a dozen sections that required a complete history of relevant litigation, minority hiring statistics, alternative fee arrangements, financials, references, industry knowledge, and so on — all to make a short-list. At which time, if the firm was not considerably better than the incumbent in the eyes of the buyer, they would not see a penny. It is a hell.

A hell unnecessarily created by buyers who believe that they cannot even consider a supplier for an event before they know everything there is to know, even though a single piece of information can disqualify the supplier from consideration before any negotiations ever begin.

This is not a good thing to do. A company with a reputation for putting its potential suppliers though RFP hell is not one that many suppliers will want to deal with. The more a supplier’s peers complain about RFP hell with Company X, the fewer are the suppliers who will even acknowledge the existence of an RFP from Company X. As the word of RFP Hell from Company X spreads, the only suppliers that will respond to an RFP from Company X are those that are desperate. Those in bad financial shape, those without a stable customer base, and those with a bad reputation. These are not suppliers you want to deal with.

If you need to cast a wide net to find new suppliers, start with an RFI that only requests enough information to determine whether or not an RFP response from a supplier can be seriously considered. And before this RFI is issued, make sure to understand the category need in detail and what the absolutes are and that the RFI addresses each absolute. If multi-lingual support is an absolute, if a platform that encrypts 100% of data is an absolute, if a company with a headquarters in a country where it can be held responsible and liable for its products is required, or if a company with a factory with certain equipment is required, the relevant questions should be asked in the RFI. You should never ask a supplier to complete a 50-page RFP until you are sure the supplier can meet every absolute requirement. You can ask them even if their chances, based upon their initial RFI response, are less than 1% (as long as you make the award criteria, and weightings, abundantly clear), but not if their chances are known to be zero. (With complete requirements, award factors, and weightings clearly known, a supplier should be able to determine its own chances and determine whether or not its investment of time is worth it.)

And then, make sure that if you need a supplier to complete a lengthy RFP, that the RFP is well written. For details on how to write better RFPs, see the ongoing series over on Spend Matters Plus (membership required) by the anarchist, the maverick, and the doctor, of which 3 parts are already up.

  • I: Intro & Issues
  • II: Requirements
  • III: Provider Secrets

You Might Be Getting the Basics Right, but That’s Not Enough

Last November, the public defender ran a great post over on Spend Matters UK on how “Procurement [is] Still Not Getting the Basics Right – and it’s Happening Too Often” and that’s not only why Procurement is often getting a bad rap, but why Procurement is getting a bad deal.

Case in point, the example given by the public defender where a recent tender used a complex scoring mechanism that scored “price” and “discount” separately and, even worse, weighted early payment discount higher. As a result, a tender of 100 with a 3% early payment discount got weighted higher than a tender of 95 with a 1% early payment discount! In other words, a best case cost of $97 was preferred over a best case cost of $94.05 — an overspend of almost 3%! That’s outrageous.

Another case is point, suppliers of complex services get invited to participate in electronic sourcing events with no prior engagement, and a tick-bock procurement process with no scope to include references, case studies, or suggest site visits for creative discussion. How should such a supplier expect to be judged, if they even expect to be judged at all? This is the well-known classic three-bids and a buy when you already have the bid you plan to accept. A smart supplier will not bid.

Now, as a regular reader of SI, that’s not the common practice in your Procurement department, but it doesn’t mean the common practice is good enough. Just because you know to weight all price factors in unison, that doesn’t mean that the weighting is right. If quality, reliability, delivery time, guaranteed delivery of supply, or another factor is critical, it needs to be weighted as highly. No point getting a 3% unit discount if you lose out on 20% of sales due to late shipments and stock outs. All of the critical factors need to be included and weighted, and, just as importantly, the suppliers must be made aware of the criticality of each factor so they can determine whether or not they even want to bid. If you need 15 days delivery, and a supplier can’t guarantee less than 21, the supplier needs to know that up front. Otherwise, they will get upset that they wasted time bidding on a tender they could not win.

Similarly, it’s not enough to do a proper, verbal, invitation over the phone, give the supplier a chance to include references, case studies, and suggest alternative proposals, if you know that one of the critical requirements of the bid or organizational preference (or prejudice) would preclude the supplier from getting the award. It’s not professional to invite the supplier unless you believe the supplier has an honest chance.

It’s not enough to do the process right if you want to be the BEST Procurement organization. To be the BEST Procurement organization you need the best process and the best ethics. You need to be known as the honest buyer who only invites suppliers who will be evaluated fairly and have a fair shot of winning the business if they are willing to tighten the belt buckle and make an honest effort of putting the best proposal forward. Then, when you make the award, no matter who gets it, chances are, you will be among the customers of choice from day one because you wanted to be both the best Procurement organization and the best customer.

So get the basics right. And then do one better.

8 Reasons Best-in-Class Suppliers are Ignoring Your RFP


Today’s guest post is from Brian Seipel, a marking project expert at Source One focussed on helping corporations achieve both marketing and procurement objectives in their strategic sourcing projects.

Imagine you’ve spent hours crafting an RFP defining exactly what you need and finding the right mix of suppliers best able to provide a solution. Despite your efforts, top suppliers are either unresponsive out of the gate or go dark early in the initiative. Suddenly, your supplier pool is shrinking, and key players in the market have thrown in the towel before your RFP even got off the ground. Why is this, and what can we do to ensure sourcing events bring in the best possible candidates?

Failure to Launch

It’s easy to look at an RFP as a way for suppliers to “wow” you, but keep in mind that an RFP is a two way street — You need to “wow” them as well. Your RFP is your first shot at communicating your needs to potential suppliers. As such, the goal of your RFP should always be to attract the best possible suppliers and quickly establish why they should participate.

As soon as your RFP lands on their doorstep, you can bet suppliers are vetting you just as hard as you vetted them. They have a short list of red flags to determine whether they are a go or no-go — if your RFP trips too many, you can bet these suppliers will go dark, even if they are a perfect match. Knowing what these red flags are will help you craft an RFP that draws them in and ensures participation.

Before Distributing the RFP

Prior to reviewing the RFP itself, let’s discuss your potential supplier pool. Two red flags will ground your RFP immediately if not addressed before would-be participants see it.

  • Lack of proper fit.
    How sure are you that the suppliers receiving your RFP really are a good fit for all your requirements? Discovering supplier fit all but a few critical needs late in the game will be a huge time waster, so consider arranging a quick conference call with any suppliers you haven’t worked with before as a measure-twice-cut-once vetting process. Not only will you identify partial or all out bad fits, you’ll be able to establish a level of rapport early on.
  • Lack of a relationship.
    Speaking of rapport, participants know they are likely to run up against incumbent suppliers during the initiative. If you don’t begin building a relationship with them quickly, they may feel they are only being brought in to help you build a case to beat the incumbent down on price. A little glad-handing goes a long way: while you’re reaching out to participants to ensure they are truly a good fit, spend time describing why they were included in the RFP, and get them excited about the opportunity.

Hidden Landmines Within Your RFP

Now that suppliers are fully vetted and raring to go, take a step back and consider what red flags are sitting in your RFP documents.

  • Too much boilerplate language.
    Any supplier who has been in business for even a short time can spot boilerplate language — it isn’t hard to pick out. Boilerplate language creates the appearance of slapdash work, and suppliers won’t want to spend resources crating a thought out into a response when they don’t think as much thought went into developing it in the first place. Unless the boilerplate is needed to fulfill certain legal needs, strip it away.
  • Lack of clarity.
    New suppliers don’t know you, your needs, or what it will take to win your business — and they will bolt if they don’t get this information quickly. Your RFP should be clearly written and organized in such a way to fill in all three of these blanks in short order. At a minimum, include an elevator pitch about your organization, and follow with the reasons behind this RFP and what you hope to accomplish before leading into the scope of work. Lay out the initiative’s key milestone dates, and the deliverables required for each.
  • Poorly defined scope of work.
    It is all too easy to gloss over fine details when building out a scope of work. Stakeholders who are intimately familiar with the initiative from the inside may not consider an outsider’s (very limited) point of view when constructing this section. Nothing sends suppliers running faster than a weak scope, which gives the impression of a poorly defined project requiring too much of a time investment in gathering enough information to participate.
  • No opportunities for communication.
    Even the clearest RFP and most detailed scope of work only tells half the story. Open communication is needed to flesh out requirements and delve deep into the underpinnings of a winning proposal. Are you building time for Q&A sessions into your initiative, and clearly spelling out your availability to participants? If suppliers get the sense that they can’t engage you, they won’t risk spending time drafting a proposal only to learn later on that they missed the mark entirely.
  • Needlessly extensive questionnaire or requirements.
    The longer your questionnaire, the more time and resources suppliers will have to spend responding. Include too many, and you may make responding too difficult. Is each question strictly required to determine if a supplier can meet your needs? Cut out any superfluous questions with extreme prejudice.
  • Requests for financial information.
    The first requirement on the chopping block should be the need for one, two, or even three years of financial information if you don’t actually intend on examining them. Private companies often balk at this requirement, and RFP issuers often subsequently drop it after they decide they don’t truly need them. There are other ways to ensure financial stability, such as Dun & Bradstreet checks and reference checks. So ask yourself, do you need all those years of financial information? Now ask again, do you really need them?

Strategic Sourcing is a Two Way Street

Remember that an RFP is a two way street. Just as suppliers are trying to win your business, you need to ensure they see the value in doing so. Clearing away the red flags above is the first step in meeting that goal.

Thanks, Brian.

Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Sourcing System, Part III e-Negotiation

In Part I, where we noted that Mr. Smith was right in his recent post on “thinking of building your own esourcing system please don’t” over on Spend Matters UK where he pleaded with those organizations, and particularly those organizations in the public sector, who thought they could build their own e-Sourcing system not to, we gave a host of reasons on why they should not because, like Mr. Smith said, they are

  • going to waste OUR money building it,
  • waste exorbitant amounts of money keeping the system up to date and compliant with ever-shifting legislation, and
  • only feed those dangerous delusions at best (and possibly create an epic disaster as 8 of the 11 greatest supply chain disasters of all time were caused by technology failures, and 6 as a result of software platform failures)!

But we know this isn’t enough to convince the smuggest and most deluded from considering the notion. So we are diving in and addressing some of the difficulties that will have be conquered, one primary module at a time, continuing with e-Negotiation, which encapsulates e-RFX and e-Auction.

An e-RFX system has the following key requirements:

  • Flexible Construction
  • Fine Grained Security & Auditing
  • User defined weighting factors for comparison

And an e-Auction system has the following key requirements:

  • Flexible Lotting
  • Configurable reverse auctions with multiple parameters
  • Real-time Distributed Communication with Fault Tolerance

Let’s start with the flexible construction requirement for RFX. Since there are dozens of vendors with decent e-RFX solutions on the market, one may fool oneself into thinking that this is easy. And while it is easier to build an e-RFX solution than just about any other Sourcing (or Supply Management) platform, if usability is a goal, it’s still not simple or straightforward. Qualification questionaries could contain a dozen sections with dozens of questions each. Advanced tabbing and pagination with dynamic expansion and compression depending upon answers and level of detail needed is an absolute must. Moreover, most supplier organizations will require input from multiple people to complete the RFX (sales, finance, production, etc.) and will need to assign parts, but not all, of the RFX to different individuals so fine-grained roles-based security will be required on the supplier side as well as the buyer side with organization, department, and user level settings and overrides.

Now let’s jump over to the flexible lotting requirement for e-Auctions. Sometimes a buyer wants to put a single product (such as laptops when an entire department is due for upgrades) out to bid, sometimes the buyer wants to put an entire category (such as office supplies) out to bid, and sometimes the buyer wants to bundle products and services (such as MRO parts and installation services). And sometimes the buyer wants to put all of these lots into a single multi-round auction. Capisce?

In addition, both platforms will require the ability to define user-defined weightings against each survey response and bid so that the buyer can compute a weighted score for each supplier or lot. And these won’t always be simple — especially if the buyer wants to weight a fuel surcharge based upon product weight and supplier region. That’s not a simple modifier, that’s a formula. And these formulas can get pretty complex in complex tenders created by a sophisticated buyer.

Moving back to the auctions, we also have the requirement that the auction must be customized each time against a host of parameters that will include, but not be limited to, bid floors and ceilings per item and lot, minimum decrements, automatic time extensions, minimum time between bids for a single supplier, and so on. Furthermore, all of this must be evaluated in a system that supports …

Real-time Distributed Communication with Fault Tolerance. In an e-Auction, multiple bids are coming in at the same time, multiple updates must be pushed out at the same time, and formulas and weightings must be calculated and updated in real time so each supplier sees their true relative rank, and not just their true relative bid. This might sound easy-peasy, but you have to remember that even the average CS graduate has trouble with programming for concurrency. (Remember, the doctor was an academic in his former life and knows this to be true. Most Universities care more about $$$ than knowledge conveyed, most untenured professors care more about publishing, as opposed to perishing, than teaching, and most tenured professors are worn out and just don’t care. As a result, as long as the program is able to read the test data and create the right output, in one case, that’s enough for a pass. It’s sad, but true.)

And while this is just a high level overview of the challenges, the hope is still that it is sufficient enough to convince you that development is not an easy task and not an idea that the average organization should remotely entertain.