Responding to RFPs
Since the topic is going around lately, I figured we’d chime in. Max Cammeron of Big Bang makes a strength-in-numbers appeal to consultants everywhere to abandon RFPs, while Carl Smith from nGen Works has a post up making a strong case that RFPs aren’t good for his clients. We don’t respond to RFPs either, and this isn’t because we’re starving artists/consultants. Many of the comments on Max’s article at Hacker News seem to be pushing this notion that responding to RFPs is the cost of business for a consultancy, and they couldn’t be more wrong.
We don’t respond to RFPs, and all of our business comes from repeat customers and referrals. And we’re not exactly making web sites for Jumpin’ Jack’s Chicken Shack, we’ve got some really big clients. Stephen gave a really good run down of why we don’t need ’em in a recent interview with Subvert.ca (emphasis added):
When we get a referral or start a new project for a past customer, there’s already a relationship in place. The client already knows that they can trust us, and it cuts out the entire “dance” that we’d otherwise have to do to prove ourselves. There are other benefits, too.
People only ask us to prepare a proposal when they are seriously considering a project. Plus, we rarely find ourselves as column fodder behind another incumbent company — we call it column fodder when you have no hope of winning a deal and your estimate is just filling in a cell on a spreadsheet for comparison purposes.
This level of trust also means that we can work more closely with our customers to develop requirements. They take our estimates and advice seriously. In the end it works out better for everyone involved.
We can talk ourselves blue in the face about the effectiveness or lack thereof in the RFP process, as I’m sure they will remain in the industry for some time, but in the end, nothing replaces good work combined with good communication, and trust. We only work with people we trust, and so do our clients.
Stay tuned, sports fans; later this morning I’ll post a run-down of where we’re going with Tempo, our time-tracker. Change is afoot!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Max Cameron says:
It’s always a pleasure to get a shout out from Zetetic, thanks for referring me back to Carl’s article. I had been planning to write an article about RFPs for some time, but reading his take on it was the kick I needed to get going.
Column Fodder is a great term, and it’s a big reason why we turn our backs to RFPs. But it’s the cycle of taking money from one client to respond to another client’s RFP that really gets me going. The irony is palpable.
Looks like Zetetic understands that leaving RFPs alone lets them provide more value and maintain less overhead.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Carl Smith says:
I’m so glad this conversation is happening, and I think you both have excellent takes on the issue.
As always happens, two days after my post a tasty opportunity to work on an e-learning system for an art school arrived in my email. In the form of an RFP.
This was my response:
_Thank you very much for including nGen Works in your search.
Unfortunately we’re no longer responding to RFPs for several reasons. Please understand we mean no disrespect and the request you’ve put together looks great.
Basically we’ve found putting together a proposal without the benefit of collaboration never allows for a project to reach it’s full potential. Also, it often takes 30-40 hours to respond fully and those are hours we need for our current projects and clients.
If you’d like to have some lunch and talk over your project I’d love to see if we’re a fit. If you can’t I completely understand.
All the best!_
He explained it was being paid for with a grant and the process was mandatory. We were the only firm in the Southeast they invited and he had great references already for us. But he respected and understood our position and hoped we could work together in the future.
I almost faltered, I almost said what the hell. But I didn’t this time and instead called a few existing clients to see how things were going with their projects. It felt great and I’m confident that prospect will come back when he can make an outright decision.
P.S. We just landed Jumpin Jack’s Chickin Shack as a client and Billy we take serious issue with you claiming they’re small fries.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Max Cameron says: The sad part about Carl’s client’s situation is that the mandatory RFP is supposed to guarantee transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, the RFP process guarantees neither. The Client has to pass on the services of an obviously capable and trustworthy team who would give them more value and better service than a lot of firms who would reply. But Carl’s a strong guy and his response was spot on. In fact, I think it’s a perfect companion to the anti-pitch. And for your information we turned down the bid on the Jumpin Jack’s Chickin Shack RFP while Carl obviously didn’t ;)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Billy Gray says:
Hey, hey, I love JJ’s Chix! No disrespect! I hear they’re hiring.
Carl, I really dig that response. I think any client who’s hands aren’t tied to the process would probably take the bait (and the lunch!)
I think it’s telling that the fellow wanted your firm in the search pool because of your bona fides and recommendations, and I would wager that alone means you don’t need to be responding to RFPs.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sonia Coleman says:
We appreciated this discussion too! We find RPFs to be a waste of time for the most part, especially because sufficient information usually isn’t available. However, we still do them on occasion. I wish they would go away!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Billy Gray says:
I hear it, sometimes you gotta go for it. We do spend a good amount of time drawing up project proposals for one of our clients, but the upshot of that is we’re the only ones drawing up the proposal, and it’s just to set the goals of a project in place and get it approved at higher levels of management, it’s not for bidding.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Geof Harries says:
Sadly, we have to respond to RFPs on a regular basis. That’s just life/business in a government town. Most of our work is for government – whether federal, provincial, municipal or arms length organizations – all of whom use the RFP process for their larger, bigger budget IT projects.
Speaking from experience, RFPs can actually be designed and written well, inflicting much less pain (e.g. unpaid hours) than your standard, run-of-the-mill request document. It really depends on who is creating them and how in tune they are with the industry.
Personally, I find the best type of “competition” format is an SOA: Standing Offer Agreement. This is typical in government software development projects, where one qualified company (or a handful of organizations) are added to a list where they can be easily and quickly called upon to work at any time during the course of a fiscal year. SOA responses focus more on laying out your company’s skills and experience rather than a RFP and it’s general “give us your ideas for free” approach. They seem much more fair.