Shifting the Focus: A RFP Process Based on Value

Sep 10, 2024 | Advertising, Blog, Branding, Tourism

The government procurement system that issues RFPs, especially when soliciting proposals for creative and other professional services, is completely broken. The system is so riddled with flaws that it is essentially useless. The process rarely results in the best selection for the issuing city, county or state. To make matters worse, it frequently increases the cost of the products and services being sought. There are more thoughts on this in the previous blog. Today, we will focus on solutions.

We are not merely suggesting a few minor tweaks to the system. The process, as it is commonly used, needs to be entirely scrapped and replaced with a better model. The RFP method simply does not work for creative services, and it never will. The inherent problem is that it tries to apply an artificial evaluation/scoring formula — one that overemphasizes pricing — to a situation that requires the judgment of professionals who have some experience in the marketing world. That outdated process needs to be completely eliminated and replaced with a system that allows people to select the a firm best suited to the need, while still safeguarding fairness and competition. When the goal is getting the highest-caliber creative work that the community can afford, instead of choosing the least expensive that is still barely acceptable, the result is maximum value for the taxpayer money.

Here are the highlights of a system that would make it possible for a government department to have the opportunity to choose wisely, while allowing the competitive procurement process to work:
  • The department seeking the creative services would be required to research and reach out to a minimum of three firms or individuals that they think are suited to the project(s). There is no upper limit on the number of firms identified. They can find qualified firms via Google, or confer with colleagues in other cities, or, perhaps, they are aware of firms from trade shows or professional associations. They then communicate with each firm by phone, Zoom or in-person to discuss the details. This step allows the firms to ask questions, and possibly, offer suggestions that the department may not have thought about. The meeting or conversation gives the firm a chance to summarize its expertise, processes, and to share examples. It gives the government department a chance to ask questions and get to know the firms.
  • The budget should always be disclosed. No exceptions. An honest discussion about budget allows potential bidders the chance to see if the project is even a good fit. If it is not, they part on friendly terms, and neither the bidder nor the department will have wasted any more than a few minutes of meeting time. Plus, the give and take with potential bidders might lead to an idea to actually save money. Small businesses genuinely want to be efficient and save their clients money. It can be a learning experience for the department seeking the services.
  • After the initial meeting, potential bidders will have an understanding of the department’s needs and can then submit a detailed price proposal. Any good price proposal will summarize the details of the project, including deliverables and a timetable, to demonstrate their understanding of the project.
  • The department seeking the services can document and report everything to the procurement department to show that fair competition exists without collusion. Otherwise, the judgments and decisions for how to proceed and how to spend their department’s budget most effectively is left up to the people who know best. After a firm is selected, the procurement team can assist in making sure the paperwork is in order, including insurance requirements, SCC registration and other necessities.

This process ensures that the spirit of competitive bidding resulted in the city, county or state selecting the absolute best firm within their budget. The final selection may or may not be the least expensive. But, if it results in the best quality creative work within the budget, that means the government got maximum value for its money. The process does not reward mediocrity by making price a greater factor than excellence, nor does it unwittingly drive up the cost with unneeded steps and processes. Price is only a factor to the extent that all of the bidders have to stay within the budget. Therefore, the department is free to select a firm solely on the merits.

Postscript
:
As long as the old, bloated, inefficient system is used, there should be at least one requirement added. After proposals are reviewed and a decision is made, it should be mandatory and standard operating procedure for the soliciting entity to not only post the decision, but contact in writing or email every bidder informing them of the outcome, and a brief summary explaining the decision. That does not seem to be an undue burden on the procurement department, considering the dozens, or even hundreds, of hours a firm might spend on submitting a proposal.

Time to Reform the RFP Process for Professional Services

Aug 28, 2024 | Advertising, Blog, Branding, Tourism

Over the course of our 30 years as a creative services firm, we have responded to quite a few Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from government procurement offices, and received many more that did not deserve a response. Since some tourism offices are part of local or county governments, it is a necessary process for them and us. We can’t speak for a firm that sells other services or products, especially commodities, like office supplies or fertilizer. But, when it comes to securing creative services, the government RFP process is badly broken. At best, it rewards mediocrity. More often than not, it does a disservice to the community that it claims to protect. At worst, the process contains lies and deceptions that many unwitting bidders don’t even know about.

  • A department of local government usually seeks a creative firm to help them address a marketing need. By definition of the creative process, it is unknown what the end product will be. Yet, most RFPs, in an effort to be thorough, borrow boiler plate language from other communities to describe what they think is needed. The truth is, they have no clue what is needed. The result is that the details of the RFP either add in a lot of unnecessary steps that drive up the price, or limit what a great creative firm could deliver if only they had been allowed to shine. The result is that the community either ends up spending more than is necessary just to comply, or the agency is forced to think small because that’s what was dictated by the terms of the RFP — terms written by the least qualified person in the mix.

  • Most of the government departments we deal with are tourism offices. The destination marketing professionals in those offices know how competitive the market is for travelers. Their mindset is (or ought to be) to work with the creative team that will produce the very best, most impactful work they can possibly afford. As marketing pros, they want brochures, ad campaigns and websites that will inspire people to take action. Their jobs are on the line if they don’t get results. However, the procurement process prioritizes finding the lowest price. An RFP may include an evaluation criteria in which price is supposedly only 15% – 20% of the score, with experience and past performance being the remaining 80% – 85%. It’s a lie. As long as pricing is introduced into the proposals and review process, it will always be the item that matters most. It will be the page that gets dog-eared by reviewers to come back to time and again. “This firm is clearly the best, most experienced choice, and they are within our budget, but maybe it would be OK to go with one of the less impressive, but less expensive firms.”

  • Procurement departments exist to ensure that rules are followed. Often the rule is that projects over a certain dollar value require an RFP, and that recurring projects/contracts require a new RFP every few years. In far too many instances, it is known even before the RFP hits the internet who the chosen firm will be. No department will ever publicly admit this, but we all know it to be true. If that is not deception, I don’t know what is.

  • RFPs set an adversarial tone before a relationship has even begun. We have spent an entire career building relationships with clients and getting them to think of us as partners. Honesty flowing in both directions is the best way to stay on time, on budget and producing the best quality work. RFPs, on the other hand, decline to share budgets, yet fill 20 pages with language about how they are not responsible for anything, make no promises at all, reserve the right to change terms, own the rights to everything that is created, and even claims a right to review our books and record keeping. Seriously?

The greatest irony of the RFP debacle is that a process meant to serve the community so often ends up costing it more. Over the course 30+ years, we have worked with more local, county and state government departments than we can count. They have included not only tourism offices, but also economic development, parks & recreation, public safety and administration. Without exception, every decision maker has always been extremely budget conscious. No department we have dealt with is rolling in cash. They are under pressure to make their budgets go as far as possible, and, as a result, act responsibly. So, the procurement/RFP process is both tying the hands of and driving up the compliance costs of the already cost-conscious professionals in every department.

Now that we have done a thorough examination of how broken the RFP process for professional and creative services is, the next blog will offer some thoughtful proposals to reform the system.

540.774.9932

6 Walnut Avenue • Vinton, Virginia 24179

facebook-icontwitter iconyoutube icon
© Mikula-Harris