When You Don’t Have the Resources to Run an RFP
In most organizations, the pressure to "just get it done" does not pause because bandwidth is low. The work moves forward — only without structure.
What Happens When RFPs Are Not Resourced
When an RFP is not run because teams are at capacity, familiar patterns surface:
- Supplier renewals proceed without market validation
- Single-source decisions become the default, not the exception
- Stakeholders make commitments before commercial terms are negotiated
- Critical documentation to justify decisions is missing or incomplete
- Finance approves spend without a defensible competitive process
None of these outcomes are intentional. They are a by-product of limited time and competing priorities. The work is not ignored — it simply bypasses the discipline that RFPs are designed to enforce.
RFPs Are Not Just a Compliance Tool
The value of an RFP is often misunderstood. An RFP is not administrative overhead — it is governance, defensibility, and accountability. A well-run RFP ensures:
- The organization can justify the outcome if questioned later
- Stakeholders evaluate suppliers on defined criteria, not influence
- Financial decisions withstand audit and executive scrutiny
- Risks, obligations, and performance expectations are defined before award
- The selected supplier can be defended internally and externally
Without an RFP, decisions may still get made — but they are far harder to defend when challenged.
For CFOs and Audit Committees: The Defensibility Gap
External auditors require documentation of competitive process — not just contract outcomes.
Board members increasingly ask: "How do we know we're getting value?" The answer requires a documented evaluation, not a retrospective justification.
In regulated industries or for publicly traded companies: The absence of structured procurement is not merely inefficient — it is a compliance exposure that extends beyond the procurement function.
When the question is asked, the documentation either exists or it does not.
Capacity Is Not the Only Constraint
Internal teams understand the business — but RFPs require more than knowledge of the category. They require time, structure, neutrality, documentation discipline, and the ability to manage the process without bias or internal pressure.
RFPs compete with operational responsibilities:
- Day-to-day support to stakeholders
- Budget cycles and approvals
- Contract renewals and urgencies
- Finance, risk, and legal reviews in parallel
When internal resources are already at capacity, RFPs do not get the level of rigor they require — not because teams are inexperienced, but because RFPs are not their core mandate.
RFPs require dedicated focus to be run properly. That is precisely why organizations bring in external support.
A Structured Alternative
Bringing in external support for RFPs is not outsourcing control — it is preserving integrity. External RFP management allows:
- The business to continue operating without interruption
- The RFP to be executed with structure and neutrality
- Internal stakeholders to participate without carrying the full workload
- Documentation, evaluation, and governance to be handled correctly
Support can be applied to the full lifecycle or only to specific stages — drafting, scoring, facilitation, supplier engagement, demonstrations, or award documentation — without adding internal headcount.
The Decision Point
The right time to bring in RFP support is not after the supplier is selected — it is when internal capacity is already strained and the risk of bypassing process is increasing.
When capacity and internal focus are barriers, the RFP still needs to be done — it simply should not be done by teams without the bandwidth or mandate to deliver it properly.
3 Questions That Signal When External Support Is Warranted
Is this RFP competing with higher-priority work?
If running this RFP means deferring strategic initiatives, operational support, or other high-value activities, the organization pays twice — once in direct cost, again in opportunity cost.
Can we document this decision to audit standards?
If the answer is "probably" or "we'll figure it out later," that is the signal. Documentation discipline under time pressure is where internal RFPs most often fail.
Will stakeholders have time to evaluate properly?
If evaluation becomes "review when you can" rather than structured scoring sessions, the process loses credibility. A rushed evaluation is often worse than no evaluation — it creates the appearance of rigor without the substance.
If the answer to any of these is uncertain, the RFP is at risk of delivering process without governance — which defeats the purpose.
Need Support Running Your Next RFP?
We help organizations execute RFPs with the governance and documentation discipline required — without adding internal headcount or compromising quality.
Schedule a Consultation
