I stumbled across a Why I hate RFPs blog yesterday - not that it's the first rant I've seen on these things, but it did make for interesting reading. Especially if you read the comments in support of this rant.
Now I could easily minimize some of the 'issues' raised, i.e. if it's a public sector RFP, they have to disclose who the incumbent is or it is deemed a hidden preference; the number of copies issue is based upon taxpayer perception that government money is being wasted on helping businesses get fat contracts (not that the perception is correct mind you!)
I'm thinking I could write an article on why I hate RFPs too, from a buyers view - but ranting doesn't solve the issues. It's similar to non-voters complaining about how the country is run...but no-one is offering "solutions".
An article in CA magazine in 2008 offered a 'solution' to the RFP. (Supposedly we, as professionals in the PMAC Agreed with him?). But again, it doesn't look at the whole picture. I read it as giving a recommendation to toss the baby with the bathwater, i.e. turn this RFP world upside down and do it differently by dealing with a few select firms and only having ONE write an actual proposal.
I can't possibly address all the issues (from the buyer's view) with this article. However, I can agree on some good points for improvement - clear specifications being the number one point. However, in reality, if government offices don't openly publicize a procurement, someone runs to their MLA, MP and complain that government money is being wasted; the process is unfair because not everyone had equal opportunity. That is what's behind the public competition - people complain the wrong company got the business; companies complain that they didn't get an equal chance because their competition has a personal relationship with the Ministry. Requests for Proposals were meant to create an arms-length, LEGAL process to evaluate fairly, objectively, and transparently. Not that the complaints about nepotism and unfairness don't still occur - but ranting why RFPs are bad isn't solving things.
Alot of what is being 'complained' about is due to policy and law. Experienced buyers (i.e. not consumer purchasing, but actual business procurement) know how to get what they need within the realm of objectivity, fairness and transparency. There are plenty of examples of multi-stage processes where only the pre-qualified, best value, experienced service provider is given the detailed specifications to propose a solution to. There are examples of draft RFPs where the buying organization is looking for vendor input to come up with a process to select the best solution, without it being deemed unfair, or led towards a single solution; there are examples of 'competitions' that suit the service being requested (IE black box "Iron Chef" competition for chef services at Government House will find link to archived article and edit this post).
So, instead of ranting, why don't we have a debriefing on our processes and learn from each other. We as buyers can learn about what we didn't 'ask for' or was unclear, and the vendor community can learn where law, legislation and lobbyists need to be addressed. After doing this for a number of years, so far, I am learning more about different industries and how to measure them in an objective way, and I have yet to have an unsuccessful service provider tell me to toss my competitive process.
end of rant
No comments:
Post a Comment