Suspicious pitches and remiss RFQs

Have you ever been involved in questionable or opaque pitches and tenders? Ever been ghosted after submitting a Request For Quote ? Should clients be more accountable and responsible in how they solicit extra-disciplinary support? Should their avowed ethics and values also be applied to how they run tender projects?

This piece isn't just a moan-fest either, for it contains six suggestions on how companies can run cleaner pitch or RFQ processes.

It's penned after we were very poorly treated by a Middle-East corporation allegedly looking for crisis simulation and training providers. This article also relates how an Aussie consultant pal lost out to a local pitch process that simply defaulted to a senior exec's old mates.

In both instances, the processes wasted the time (thus money) of multiple pitching agencies.

The Middle-East company I referenced earlier, announced an open RFQ in early-June 2024 with a closing window of 11 June. Work was to be delivered by the end of June/early July. After we submitted, they then informed us their brief was wrong and resent a new brief on 3 July asking for replies by 8 July. As it was unclear what had changed, we sought clarification and heard nothing for weeks! With further apologies for time elapsed, they sent a more forensic brief on 4 September asking for responses by 10 September. When we challenged them on the ridiculousness of that deadline, they afforded us 2 extra days grace. We gave them a fresh submission on 16 September. They wrote they would try to let us know the outcome within 1 week. On 28 October - after we'd requested news - they said due to 'significant transformation' they'd closed the RFQ suggesting they might revisit it in 2025. The good news was that they wrote how they 'appreciated our understanding and valuable time'!! They appreciate our valuable time - as long as we didn't put a paid value on it I guess?

Consultants and freelancers accept as fact that clients will extend invitations for suppliers to quote for work. Devising and preparing proposals, methods, timelines and costs in order to win some or any project is a time consuming and, sometimes, fruitless endeavour.

However, many times the pitch process and evaluation criteria are loose, loaded or opaque.

It often appears that little thought has been spent client-side, in being clear about the quality of services required, the assessment process and metrics that will be used to judge submissions as well as the interview, selection and feedback process that will be afforded to the submitters. Sometimes, there's no budget set nor delivery deadline specified.

Recently at The Drill, we were asked to attend a pre-RFQ chat, where several of our crisis insights were instantly noted down. Wowed, they told us our preliminary insights would see them reframe their crisis plans which had taken the wrong approach to their issues! So, we were invited to urgently submit a quote for work before a holiday period began. Being told we were the only 'other' agency being spoken to, we complied and were dismayed when this client later said they "mis-filed" our submission and, without contacting us again, gave the project work to an incumbent firm they indicated they'd hitherto been unhappy with.

Does this seem professional or ethical? We subsequently asked for accountability and clarity but all we got was being 'ghosted'. This also happened with a KL-based firm, too.

Back to the media peer I mentioned earlier; he presented what the RFQ lead said was the best pitch for the work and despite excelling on the evaluation criteria - budget, experience, innovative methodologies, scope of work and value-for-money - a client Exec elected to award the work to an old pal. Yet being an 'old pal' wasn't listed on the evaluation criteria list.

Most consultants know the pitch process is flawed, yet many are scared to call it out lest it would prejudice them from getting work from clients that are willing to treat them poorly. What does all this say about the ethics and values of companies and personnel who show scant respect for practitioners and firms they ask to tender?

This article then, could easily be perceived as a curmudgeonly carp at the crappiness of client quote solicitation. Yes, there's a bit of that in here, but some constructive ideas follow: The insights below can help clients prepare better briefs for the work they seek pitches for and then run the RFQ process as ethically and professionally as would be appropriate when expecting experts to commit their time, insight and effort to prepare and submit quotes:

Bereft Of Budget:

We know every company needs to find value-for-money. Yet asking multiple agencies to quote for work without even a ballpark figure on what budget may be available is opaque to the point of conniving. If clients know they only want the lowest price, they should declare upfront that low/lowest cost is a paramount selection criteria.

Complete Criteria:

We recall submitting an RFQ on a pretty lean turnaround time, only for the deadline day to pass by two weeks. We then received an update that the original RFQ topic was wrong, but we had to submit on the new topic was required within four working days (it's actually the GCC project cited earlier). They routinely failed to reply to emails asking for updates and results about their deliberations.

Personality Preference:

It's essential there's good chemistry between client and consultant. But when hidden 'brownie points' for pal submissions count more than professional expertise and project aptness, that's unfair if it's not stated upfront.

Too Many Tenders:

Asking multiple companies (over 5 for eg) to pitch for the work without standardised assessment and interview criteria signals a lack of respect for fellow-professionals' time. This process leads older heads to surmise the RFQ process is freely harvesting ideas and methodologies without clarity on how submissions will be weighted and evaluated.

Unrealistic Turnaround Times:

Issuing calls for tender with less than seven days response time suggests little respect for the agency fact-finding a project familiarity process. More so, accelerating the scope/quote process to meet an EOFY or holiday deadline shows the quality of project provider matters less than internal deadlines. Again, considered submissions take time to craft so it's vital that clients respect the submitters time.

Vague Specifications:

Being imprecise about the type of expertise sought and fuzziness around outcomes relating to project outcomes required make it difficult for submitting agencies to fairly estimate associated costs, materials, resources and time.

The above are just some of the factors and flaws that can infect and corrode an ethical and effective procurement process. Naturally good communication both internally and with the potential external partners is essential to any agency engagement processes.

When putting out an RFP or RFQ, please ensure your brief is clear, consistent, explicit and transparent when shared with possible providers. Also, show respect and be willing to give submitters a qualitative debrief so they can learn where they went wrong or misinterpreted your request. You may not owe 'pitchers' money if their submission falls short - but you should feel the need to be respectful of the effort they expended providing you with an unpaid-for response. At heart, it's about respecting the valuable time of your fellow peers.

And finally, don't - please don't - introduce rogue or whimsical criteria (for eg; the old pals act) that quickly become critical determinants of what it takes to actually win the work.

I suspect some people (even prospective clients) will think less of me for having the temerity to write this piece. Maybe that will affect our prospects of getting onto a pitch list - or losing out on two of the RFQ's we're still awaiting confirmation on: Hey Katie? Hey Azzif ?

Nevertheless - in good faith - I hope the above can ensure your RFQ doesn't turn into an ethics-free TFN (thanks for nothing) folderol, for any of those invited to or involved in it.

We welcome clients who seek mutually beneficial professional relationships.

/ends

www.thedrill.com.au