MarketWorks working for you in your market

It’s happened again. For the umpteenth time I went to a compulsory briefing for an RFP (Request for Proposal) from a government department. And for the umpteenth time it was a sham and a shambles.

The briefing started late because they had to change the venue for a larger one, and even then the new venue was too small – half of us sat on the floor. Did the procurement department think that in these difficult economic times, no-one would want new work? Or were they just going through the RFP motions and hadn’t given the actual process much thought at all?
 
The briefing started with the “business champion” reading us the RFP. Bless him, perhaps there were a few in the audience of vendors who couldn’t read. The rest of us – because we wanted the work – were polite but bored.
 
Then the “business” guy handed over to the “procurement” guy. Who – you guessed it – read us the “procurement” portion of the documents that we had already downloaded and read (otherwise, why would we be there?)
 
I’m afraid I can’t report further on these particular proceedings because I left early – but vendors were still arriving an hour late, which makes a mockery of “compulsory”. It was all about signing the attendance register, and certainly not about listening to the briefing.
We won’t be responding to the RFP because we believe that it is “canned” – a preferred supplier has already been identified, and now the department was just going through the governance motions.
 
How do we draw that conclusion? Firstly the “business champion” knew less about what he was reading than we did – which indicates to us that he didn’t write the spec. And if he didn’t, who did? Not someone from inside the department because surely he or she would have been there to brief us? Surely this government department respected their vendors enough to grace them with someone who knew what the RFP was about? Or not.
Secondly, we believe that this RFP is canned because it is too detailed – it smacks of someone with a particular methodology and set of tools, writing the RFP spec. for their client in such a way that – surprise, surprise – only that vendor is positioned do the work. Also this is follow-on work – a supplier has already been providing this service for the past two years – this RFP is about continuing where their previous supplier left off. Or not.
 
Thirdly, these people have asked for the earth, but have categorised this as a “below R500k” RFP. Actually what they said was: “The value of this bid is estimated to exceed/not exceed R500 000 and therefore the 80-20 system shall be applicable.” Go figure. They’re asking for a minimum of four month’s intensive research and analysis, using extensive country-wide resources, with benchmarking and world best-practice, and they expect to pay/not pay less than R500 000. Really? My guess is that they know what this will cost them and haven’t bothered with any of the stuff that’ll put the rest of us off – they have to go through the motions after all.
 
Finally, this government department has given very precise timelines, nay deadlines. They expect vendors to respond within three weeks, and will take a week to evaluate the results. Then work must start in the next week, and be finished four months later. Given the size of the job, unless you’ve started already (which we suspect the successful “vendor to be” has done), you won’t be able to deliver on their timeframes.
My partner pointed out to me this morning that we haven’t won one RFP (not one) in the last three years unless we’ve had a previous relationship with the department concerned. Nothing untoward or illegal, just that we won work only on RFPs where the client already knew us and our capabilities.  Yes, we get shortlisted for about 70% of the “open” RFPs we respond to, because the department concerned has to show that they are being fair. We were shortlisted because our response was good and the process required short list of possible suppliers – but we were never in the frame.
 
Almost all big business is awarded as a result of relationships. It stands to reason - would you award a large job to someone who had never done any work for you before? Who hadn’t shown that they can deliver in spite of problems and setbacks, who hadn’t demonstrated their bona fides? I thought not. Small projects where the risks are contained, perhaps, but for the big stuff you want to know that the supplier is capable of delivering. Your reputation is on the line here. That’s how business works, and there’s no reason to believe that government works differently.
 
In a perfect world, open and unbiased RFPs would be... open and unbiased.  I just don’t think that the world is perfect. And until Government recognises some of these realities and imperfections, it’s just not worth our while to respond to open RFPs.