Play Fair with The Consultants

Being the third of Greg's tips on how to write an RFP that will get you the proposals you're hoping for.


Last month we talked about the importance of NOT overloading your RFP with unnecessary mandatory requirements. And a couple of weeks ago we suggested some of the basic information you should include in your RFPs to help consultants focus on your real needs.

Now a touchy subject near and dear to the hearts of consultants everywhere...

TIP No. 3: Play Fair with the Consultant.

When we receive a Request for Proposals, we take it at face value. We assume you're looking for competitive bids from a range of firms, that you'll make your choice on the basis of the selection criteria you've provided, and that you actually intend to proceed with the project.

Now, if you read that incredulously and asked yourself when exactly we climbed off the saucer from Planet Naive, be assured - we know that's not always actually the case.

• We've been asked to bid on RFPs by clients who have worked with the same consultants for years, who have asked that consultant to draft the RFP they're inviting us to bid on, and who are allowing other firms one week to develop a complex project plan and budget requiring a level of detail that only an insider has.
  

• We've been asked to bid on RFPs by clients who have no set budget, or even an estimate; they're asking consultants for proposals because they're curious about how much their goals will cost to achieve, and they'd like someone else to do the research and planning.
  
  
• We've been sent RFPs that casually mention that the work will proceed "if and when funding is received" - in essence, if we write a proposal that the client can take to a funder, the client will consider us when it comes time to do the actual work.

And what, you may ask, is really wrong with any of those scenarios?

The first one is simply unfair. It can take a consulting firm weeks to prepare a detailed proposal;  that investment in time is made in good faith, on the assumption that clients are going to give it a thorough review and fair consideration.

The second one is more tricky. Some clients really don't know what a project will cost, and want to get a range of options from various proposals. That leaves clients with the challenge of trying to compare apples, oranges and bicycles; none of the bids will have a common base or budget that allow you to evaluate their relative merit on the basis of a comparable scope. Even if you are not sure what a project will cost, you probably DO have a budget; by providing at least a range, you will get a much better sense of what you'll get for your money and who can offer more or better work.

The third scenario is a reality, especially for many non-profit and Aboriginal clients. However, fewer and fewer firms are willing to bid on a project if there's no assurance that there's any actual work. A simple and fair alternative is to pay a consultant or researcher to help you apply for funding, make no commitment to them regarding the actual project work, and issue your RFP once the funding is in place.

Apart from simple considerations of ethics, trust, and good faith, there's a very practical, business reason NOT to make consultants waste their time writing proposals you're not going to consider. It costs YOU money. Consulting fees are calculated on the basis of how much it costs to operate a company, plus a profit margin. Every unsuccessful proposal drives that operating expense (and eventually the price you pay for service) up. You're not only doing us a favour by playing fair: you're keeping your own costs down as well.