Creating the RFP/RFQ

Many firms have their own general terms and conditions such as insurance coverage requirements, confidentiality, and indemnification clauses available from their procurement department. In certain cases, boilerplate text is available. As expected, service providers have their own contract terms and conditions and some may insist on customer acceptance "as is." Smaller firms have less leverage and often are presented with the "take it or leave it" alternative. However, in many cases, buyers can negotiate changes.

The RFP process can be used for requesting innovative solutions in architecture, local and long-distance services, and new product deployment. Given the rate of technological innovation and carrier consolidations and divestitures, customers may not be aware of new products and prices available. Serving as the Swiss army knife of buyers, the RFQ is used for diverse purchases, such as installation, maintenance, equipment, and voicemail systems.

There has not always been a fine distinction between RFP and RFQ. In theory, an RFP invites the service provider to develop imaginative solutions to the buyer's business needs. In contrast, the RFQ states exactly what the buyer requires (very detailed specifications) and is looking solely for pricing. Most RFPs and RFQs fall between these two ideal structures. Generally, if the buyer does not have the expertise of staff to develop a well-defined RFQ, then an RFP is preferable. It does not make sense to send out an RFQ for yesterday's solution; reputable vendors know the "new, new thing" on the market.

Whether documents are simple or formal, they should contain explicit instructions for the respondent's proposed solution. Otherwise, the vendors are guessing requirements and the playing field for the subsequent evaluation is uneven. As telecommunications consultants, the authors have occasionally been brought in after an RFP has been issued to discuss the selection process with the "non-winners." Where bad feelings occur, the cause is most often poor wording of requirements and concerns that the selection criteria were vague, rendering the final choice as arbitrary.

No comments:

More?