I've never been a proponent of the RFP landscape and the flashy, egotistical, show-me-the-money culture that it feeds. I choose to keep out of the spotlight when the topic comes to the table unless I'm tossing out an opinion at a casual business meetup. After all, many simply shoot back with a line like, “If you don't want to play, then stay out of the game.” And I think that's true for the most part. Touché to those folks. But lately, I've become an even greater naysayer of RFP's after a staggering discovery coming out of my own state's Governor's Energy Office (GEO).
A Brief Back Story
I recently had the pleasure of working with a Denver-based new home design/build firm and, in turn, decided to make it a goal of my company to become involved in sustainable and green industries. Such businesses are emerging quickly and creating jobs for many, especially here in Colorado. I've started reaching out to various organizations and companies to get a better feel for the landscape and to (hopefully) begin developing business relationships. The end goal is to work with companies that value design as an intellectual process rather than a commodity, all the while doing work for a cause greater than many standard design projects.
The Green Grail
It came to my attention through conversation and research that each state now has an established energy office entity. If you were to visit the robust Recovery.gov website, you'll find links to each individual states' recovery website. From this portal, information is posted as to where Recovery Act money is being spent, how it's producing jobs in local communities, and links relating to requests for services from various local and regional businesses.
For example, Colorado's recovery act system has started allocating specific budgets to a variety of state-lead programs for improvements; whether it be (specific to design) new campaigns, improved printed works, modern website development, and more. It turns out that this is the only way a business like mine can gain benefit from stimulus money given to the state. And so, out of curiosity, I sprung for the $40 to gain access to the Colorado BIDS system. If this is what it took to make certain contacts, then I was up for taking a closer look.
Upon acceptance behind the digital veil, I was greeted with what you might imagine: poorly designed government web pages lacking any sense of character and long, legal-speak content screaming at my eyes through legacy HTML tables. Yet, working my way through the muckity-muck, I finally found an official request document in PDF format. I decided to take a look at all of its 28 pages of glory.
When sifting through the document I began to feel a strange twinge in my side as I realized I was going against most of what I'd said to others in the past. I thought to myself, “Oh well, maybe it's not that bad.” Page after page droned on about notices, awards, conditions, conflicts, schedules, and—by page 16—finally something about design. There laid a long, bulleted, uninteresting (and certainly marginal) explanation of actual deliverables in actual quantities. With so few variables and a heap of legal jargon, I started to think that the "real" request document must have been a link I missed elsewhere. To no avail, this was it. I took a deep breath, closed the document, and went home.
Under The Hood
A few days passed and I received a notice via email that an abbreviated update document, pertaining to the aforementioned request I browsed, had been posted. As it turns out, it was a question and answer document gathered by the client and made available to all within the system. To be clearer, it was a 22-page conglomerate of questions from participating firms including the best answers the client could give.
Within these 22 pages I realized that these firms (most of which I assume commonly respond to RFPs) routinely and casually compromise professionalism, focus, and a clear design path simply to attain financial success.
As Eric Karjaluoto explores in a 2007 ideasonideas article, from the client's view:
And what is found as they review these materials? Misunderstanding about their needs; countless forms; platitudes and rhetoric aiming to impress or bamboozle; and ultimately very little that really addresses the more complex challenges.
It's worth noting that a particular agency asked a handful of poignant and revealing questions of the client. Namely, “Is this RFP being conducted because it's state-mandated?” As it turns out, the client is in fact very pleased with their current vendor, the token incumbent, and their answer revealed that the entire process was a requirement.
But even more notable and perhaps disappointing came out of a question that many agencies inquired: “Will out of state firms be considered?”
Of course not, right? After all, this is a Colorado-based client being funded through Colorado-based recovery money, right? To which the response was that—quite shockingly—yes, these firms would be considered just as long as they register within the Colorado BIDS system. Any firm can and will be reviewed, they stated.
From that I read, “We will most likely be keeping our current vendor. But, if your price is right and we're jazzed about the big clients you've worked with in the past, we may consider you.”
Quickly reconnecting to our state's recovery website, I had to double-check the lingo for this recovery act program. “It did say it was for our state only, yes?” I thought.
The Irony
Perhaps not surprisingly, the first paragraph of the Colorado Governor's Energy Office website copy ironically states:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) presents an extraordinary opportunity to strengthen Colorado's New Energy Economy and will create new green jobs across the state. With this opportunity also comes a need for additional oversight to ensure these funds are invested effectively, efficiently and wisely, and with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability. The Governor's Energy Office (GEO) will work diligently to honor this responsibility to the taxpayers and the public.
With this dichotomy clearly presented, I closed the documents and starting thinking more about the RFP process, the game that it is, and the elusive club that certainly comes along with getting a solid hand in a winning pot. Perhaps there is a barrier, hidden, somewhere, that prevents anyone from submitting proposals. But that's not the point. This client, and certainly others, have and are abusing the reason this system was put into place from the onset. Beyond absurd state loopholes and greedy “Impress me, clown” clients, so many things are wrong with the process that it becomes almost incomprehensible to sort out.
I have, however, conjured up a few points that should be noted:
- You aren't promoting your business, ethics, values, or goals to these companies. You're promoting your bottom line.
- It is about ethics, values, goals, and the communication that comes from building solid relationships. Anyone that says otherwise is in the design field for the wrong reasons.
- Don't put on blinders when it comes to proposal submission. It's clearly and diligently recorded how past RFP experiences have occurred. Those that play understand the game. And it is a game.
- Ask yourself if your company is simply proposing a best guess at what you think the client wants, versus what you know to be actual needs of the client, sought out through meaningful research and discussion.
Moving Forward
Ultimately, I believe the RFP process hurts the design industry on the whole. Realizing it will never go away (within some subsets of the design world [e.g. advertising], it runs the show) I still promote a voice of caution to any firm that chooses to take part in the dance. It may seem like an old hat comment, but jumping into an RFP process without thought—deeper questions, approaching it as a dialogue instead of a one-way street, and understanding the risks you and your team may take—devalues what so many of us try to instill in each new client that walks through the door.
Including, but not limited to: process, value, goals, communication, quality, and execution.
A few years ago Andy Rutledge (in his now archived Design View series) said:
Bad clients only want to know your rate. (They) only want to know how you address their limited view of what it is you can do. Good clients want to know your value.
He's right. Because when it comes down to crunch time, it's better to know what your client desires and expects, rather than struggling to understand what you got yourself into in the first place.
About The Author
Chris Arnold builds smart, flexible websites in Denver, Colorado. He likes backcountry travel and thunderstorms. Learn More.
