The RFP Process: Where Organizations Lose Value Without Realizing It
And yet, even when those steps are followed, many organizations walk away from an RFP feeling uncertain. The selected supplier may be defensible on paper, but confidence in the decision is lower than expected. Key tradeoffs feel unresolved. Risks only surface after contracts are signed. In some cases, the RFP even limits flexibility rather than improving outcomes.
This usually isn't because the RFP process was skipped or executed incorrectly. It's because the RFP process wasn't designed to support the decision the organization actually needed to make.
What Is the RFP Process?
At a high level, the RFP process refers to the structured approach organizations use to solicit proposals from suppliers, evaluate those proposals against defined criteria, and select a vendor.
While the details vary, most RFP processes include five core stages:
- Defining the business problem and objectives
- Developing requirements and evaluation criteria
- Issuing the RFP to the market
- Evaluating supplier responses
- Awarding and contracting
In many commercial organizations, RFPs are run infrequently and often without a dedicated procurement team. Ownership is shared across finance, IT, operations, and business stakeholders, each bringing different priorities and risk perspectives to the process.
In regulated or risk-conscious environments, there is often an added emphasis on compliance, auditability, and defensibility. While these considerations are important, the steps themselves are rarely the issue. The breakdown usually occurs in how those steps are interpreted and applied.
What the RFP Process Is Supposed to Do
A well-designed RFP process should do more than collect pricing and proposals. At its best, it should:
- Create clarity around what problem is actually being solved
- Surface meaningful differences between suppliers
- Make tradeoffs explicit and deliberate
- Reduce risk before contracts are signed
- Support confident, defensible decision-making
When the RFP process achieves these outcomes, organizations feel aligned internally and comfortable moving forward—even when the lowest-priced bid is not selected.
When it doesn't, teams often rely on scoring models and documentation to compensate for uncertainty they still feel.
Where the RFP Process Commonly Breaks Down
Across industries, the same issues appear repeatedly. They are subtle, easy to miss, and rarely solved by simply "following the steps."
1. Requirements That Reflect the Past, Not the Need
Many RFPs are built around existing processes, legacy systems, or incumbent suppliers. Requirements describe how things are done today rather than what the organization needs to achieve going forward.
This limits supplier creativity and often favours familiarity over fit. More importantly, it prevents decision-makers from learning anything new through the RFP process.
2. Evaluation Criteria That Don't Match Decision Reality
RFP evaluation models often include dozens of weighted criteria and detailed scoring frameworks. On paper, this creates structure. In practice, final decisions usually hinge on a much smaller set of factors—delivery risk, confidence in the proposed team, long-term flexibility, or cultural fit.
When evaluation criteria don't reflect how decisions are actually made, scoring becomes an administrative exercise rather than a decision-support tool.
3. Optimizing for Defensibility Instead of Outcomes
In regulated or risk-conscious environments, RFPs are often designed to be defensible first and effective second. The focus shifts toward documentation, audit trails, and procedural consistency.
While defensibility and compliance matter, over-optimizing for them can lead to conservative requirements, rigid evaluation frameworks, and limited dialogue with suppliers—all of which reduce the quality of the final outcome.
4. Treating Contract Award as the Finish Line
Many RFP processes end at award, with little consideration for how the supplier will be governed, measured, or integrated after the fact.
As a result, issues that could have been identified during the RFP process surface later through contract disputes, scope creep, or performance challenges.
A successful RFP process doesn't eliminate uncertainty, but it does create clarity—around what matters most in the decision, where tradeoffs exist, which risks are acceptable, and why one supplier is the right choice.
Balancing Compliance and Decision Quality in the RFP Process
In commercial environments, RFPs are often run as one-off events rather than as part of a repeatable sourcing framework. Teams may only run an RFP every few years, which makes it difficult to build institutional knowledge or refine the process over time.
In regulated industries, compliance requirements can add another layer of complexity. The challenge is not compliance itself, but ensuring compliance supports—rather than replaces—sound decision-making.
When compliance requirements dominate process design, RFPs can become overly rigid, limiting meaningful supplier differentiation and constraining the organization's ability to explore tradeoffs. The process may appear rigorous, but still fail to deliver clarity or confidence.
What a Strong RFP Process Actually Delivers
A successful RFP process doesn't eliminate uncertainty, but it does create clarity.
Clarity around:
- What matters most in the decision
- Where tradeoffs exist
- Which risks are acceptable—and which are not
- Why one supplier is the right choice given the organization's context
When this clarity exists, organizations can move forward with confidence, even in complex or high-stakes procurements.
Where Organizations Typically Need Support
Organizations rarely struggle with the mechanics of issuing an RFP. The challenge is designing the process so it surfaces the right information, clarifies tradeoffs, and supports confident decision-making.
This is where RFP management support adds value—not by running the process for you, but by helping structure the RFP so it aligns with outcomes rather than just steps.
In many cases, recurring RFP challenges also point to broader procurement process and governance issues that extend beyond a single sourcing event.
Learn more about our Strategic Sourcing & RFP Management Consulting.
Final Thought
The RFP process is often treated as a checklist. In reality, it's a decision-making tool.
When designed thoughtfully, it reduces risk, creates alignment, and leads to better outcomes. When treated as a formality, it can create the illusion of rigor while quietly eroding value.
If this sounds familiar, it's usually a sign that the issue isn't whether to run an RFP—but how the RFP process is being designed and managed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the RFP process?
The RFP process is the structured approach organizations use to solicit proposals from suppliers, evaluate those proposals against defined criteria, and select a vendor. It typically includes five core stages: defining business objectives, developing requirements and evaluation criteria, issuing the RFP to the market, evaluating supplier responses, and awarding and contracting.
Where do organizations typically lose value in the RFP process?
Organizations commonly lose value through: requirements that reflect past processes rather than actual needs, evaluation criteria that don't match how decisions are really made, over-optimizing for defensibility instead of outcomes, and treating contract award as the finish line rather than considering implementation and ongoing governance.
How do you balance compliance and decision quality in RFPs?
The key is ensuring compliance requirements support rather than replace sound decision-making. When compliance dominates process design, RFPs can become overly rigid, limiting meaningful supplier differentiation. A strong RFP process creates clarity around what matters most in the decision, where tradeoffs exist, which risks are acceptable, and why one supplier is the right choice given the organization's context.
What should a well-designed RFP process deliver?
A well-designed RFP process should create clarity around what problem is being solved, surface meaningful differences between suppliers, make tradeoffs explicit and deliberate, reduce risk before contracts are signed, and support confident, defensible decision-making. When these outcomes are achieved, organizations feel aligned internally and comfortable moving forward.
When should organizations seek RFP management support?
Organizations typically benefit from RFP management support when they need help structuring the RFP process to align with outcomes rather than just steps. Support is particularly valuable when facing complex or high-stakes procurements, when RFPs are run infrequently, or when recurring RFP challenges point to broader procurement process and governance issues.
Why do evaluation criteria often fail to support good decisions?
RFP evaluation models often include dozens of weighted criteria and detailed scoring frameworks that create structure on paper. However, final decisions usually hinge on a much smaller set of factors like delivery risk, confidence in the proposed team, long-term flexibility, or cultural fit. When evaluation criteria don't reflect how decisions are actually made, scoring becomes an administrative exercise rather than a decision-support tool.
Learn More About This Service
Strategic Sourcing & RFP Management Consulting
Explore how we help organizations design RFP processes that deliver clarity, reduce risk, and support confident decision-making.
Need Help Structuring Your Next RFP?
Whether you're running a complex sourcing event or building repeatable procurement processes, we help organizations design RFPs that deliver clarity, reduce risk, and support confident decision-making.
Andrew Wolfe
Founder & CEO | Wolfe Procurement
