[Charles H. Green and I collaborated on this jointly-written blog post. It also appears on his Trusted Advisor Blog.]
We’ve all been asked to respond to Requests for Proposal (RFPs). Many Requests for Proposal (RFPs) are well written, succinctly-worded, and play an important role in the intelligent procurement processes of well-run companies.While we both know that to be true, sometimes we have to wonder: Why is it that we see so many of the other kind of requests for proposal? Is it lack of knowledge on the part of the RFP writer or perhaps an inability to alter processes that might have worked in the past?
You know the kind we’re talking about: RFP’s written to avoid talking to salespeople, architects or engineers. This type of document assumes the only relevant variable is price. And it’s motivated by a fear that salespeople or engineers will gang up and collude against the buyer if it becomes known there’s a purchase afoot.
These types of RFPs are written from a defensive position, rather than as a confident and aggressive approach to creating mutually beneficial business relationships and outcomes.
We’ve both written about RFPs before (Charlie in Open Letter to Clients: Why You Should Drop RFPs; Babette, most recently in her White Paper: Are You Turning Your Company Into An RFP Mill). Today we want to address how to respond to those kind of RFPs.
Keep in mind: There are good reasons for creating, as well as responding to, RFPs. Any hurt feelings you might have are irrelevant to your proper reaction. Whether or not they taught you soft skills in engineering school or not, how you respond to these types of RFPs set the tone for your professionalism and thought leadership. Strive for an objective, reasonable tone, devoid of blaming. That will help the central point you want to make.
You might consider something like this as a starting draft:
Dear ___ :
I hope this finds you well, etc.
I wasn’t sure how to respond to your RFP regarding objectives, agenda and costs. Here’s why:
• In our initial call, I shared with you a list of objectives that past clients achieved through us. I was trying to help you define your own objectives, rather than presume to tell you what your objective should be.
• We also discussed several alternative program designs, to help you craft your own agenda, rather than us simply proposing one for you.
Basically, I was trying to collaborate on a customized design rather than to sell a standardized product.
What I read into your RFP is that you’d prefer not to engage in a design discussion, but rather go straight to bid. There is of course nothing wrong with that, and it’s completely your decision. At the same time, I find that usually means one of two things:
1. The customer really isn’t interested in customizing, preferring a standardized product; or
2. The vendor decision has been pretty much made (and we’re not it).
Again, there’s nothing wrong with either one of those. But in either case, it’s hard on our end to justify investing the extra time. We have a mild preference for customized products; more importantly, we fear misunderstandings from purchases based on incomplete understandings.
Please don’t hear anything critical or complaining about this; nobody’s wrong, no feelings are hurt. I just want to be clear and not leave conversations uncomfortable or unfinished. I hope I’m not offending by being very candid and direct in this email; my intent is to make it OK for us to be truthful with each other.
Best wishes,
____________
This is a real-life letter, by the way.
If you’re thinking, “that sounds way too direct,” ask yourself how many sales hours you spend requesting people to allow you to respond to one of these cattle-call documents, compared to the time you spend with prospective customers.
Because that’s the price you’re paying for an inability to directly confront the issue.
Your goal is to reduce RFPs whose sole goal is price. That means you need to rethink your customer acquisition strategy too.
Understand whether your relationship with your customer merits strong consideration, or whether you feel you’ve already been placed in the “also-ran” category. If you believe your thought leadership and industry, product or platform expertise is genuinely of value to them, then this is why you give yourself permission to reply directly.
Respond from a position of confidence and knowledge.
If you are right, they will see it your way and ask you to talk further. If they don’t ask you to talk further, it is because:
a. It was price-driven anyway, in which case you saved lots of time; or
b. You were wrong, and they actually don’t care about your expertise, in which case you again saved a lot of time (and have something to think about); or
c. You offended them.
If you’re concerned about the last possibility, then we urge you to write a better letter, because you’re still preparing to waste a lot of time.
Meantime, you might want to know the client’s actual response to the real letter above, here it is:
- LOL! The next steps are in our court. We need to really look at the links you sent us and come up with a draft of what we would like to see and then get back to you. I will certainly email/call you if we have any questions along the way. You are still very much in the running.
Was that a worthwhile letter? When was the last time you could have written such a letter? What will you do when the opportunity next presents itself?
Babette Ten Haken collaborated with Charles H. Green on today’s blog post. Charlie is an author and subject matter expert on trust-based relationships and trust-based selling in business. Founder and CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates, he is author of Trust-based Selling, and co-author of The Trusted Advisor and The Trusted Advisor Fieldbook. You can read his version of our collaborative blog post by clicking here.
Charlie and I felt that it was about time to address this topic head-on, Rob. All of us deal with this very large Elephant in the Room. When you take the time to draw your personal line in the professional sand, I’ve found you end up discovering – for yourself – what your core value is to your customers. Glad you found our joint blog post provocative.
In California, maybe other jurisdictions as well, engineers, architects, land surveyors, and some other classifications are codified as “Design Professionals” in the Little Brooks Act (California’s disingenuous version of the federal Brooks Act). That means all proposals must be rated based on qualifications, not cost. Once you find the most qualified professional, the parties can begin to negotiate the cost of services. It is assumed that you get what you pay for and that the public is best served by the most qualified professionals, not the cheapest.
Thanks for posting!!
Glad you found the post provocative! California appears to have moved beyond the status quo with the Little Brooks Act. Until the rest of the state dominoes begin to tip, the bid process remains overwhelminglyg cost-based. While there is no direct correlation between cost and quality/outcome, the-way-it-currently-is needs to be revisited, as you point out.