The catch phrase of the year is “disruptive,” and so we have
been and will continue to be as we attack this subject. I thank so many of you
for your input. I’m going to use it all for this Part Three. All of you have
fantastic input, definitive opinions, and great interest in making some
changes. And all of you are asking “how do we do that?” By standing together
and effecting change… haven’t got it all figured out yet, but with all of you
continuing to weigh in, maybe we’ll get there.
I’m going to add to this some comments by Bob Abbott, a
former client (now retired) and meeting planner. Here’s what Bob had to say: “Typically
I did a lot of homework leading up to selecting a supplier; therefore, I knew
going in which potential suppliers were likely to deliver what I needed. Enter
the Finance VP or Purchasing Manager: policy demands three bids. Did I need
them? No. Did they? Not really. But they didn’t understand the process because
they were in the mode of purchasing manufacturing process, commodities, and
services. They also tended to buy the least costly whatever. To them,
relationships and results didn’t matter as much as bottom line costs.”
Bob also adds that time is at a premium so often that some “cut
and paste” is faster and sometimes appropriate if the event repeats year after
year. “I” (Bob) “thought of the RFP as a door opener, inviting my selected
potential suppliers to the table for interaction and dialogue. If I were one of
those suppliers, my first action would be an exploratory phone call to address
questions.”
So, believe it or not, we are on the same page with this
savvy planner.
Hopefully Bob will read this and help us out with some common
concerns:
1. Many RFPs state that the client will own all ideas. This means they are receiving a ton of creativity that they can unfairly give to their chosen vendor.
I say "never"!!!! I won't bid on a job which has this clause. What about you?
2. We find that no matter how many questions we ask to make sure that the project is for real and qualified we are dependent on the prospective client to tell the truth. They ask for bids without even knowing if they have the permission to carry out their plan, have the funds, have the time, or have the decision-making power.
We always need to ask "who is the decision maker?" And "is this a definite project?" Perhaps we should consider saying that we will respond to the RFP for no charge if it is a for-sure project (check with the venue; check with the city). However, if it is a proposed project that has not been approved, then we'll need to charge for the response. Thoughts, everyone?
3. You receive an RFP on a Friday before a holiday weekend. You send questions that need to be asked in order to respond. A kick-back email message advises that the sender is out for a week, and, of course, the RFP is due upon sender's return.
I would respond that "RFP was received at... questions submitted at... as soon as answers are received we will have our response to you within 48 hours (or your time frame) of receipt. And one of the questions should be "when will the responses be reviewed and read?"
4. One reader suggests that we interview people who have worked for these companies before.
I say "amen" to this suggestion.
5. Another reader suggests that "It's sad that most procurement specialists feel that the process is their attempt to do what is best for the company. However, anyone who is good at responding to RFPs knows that you bid low, be very specific, and make your money on the add ons.
How do you all feel about this? We base our business on the fact that we don't do this; we bid fairly and rarely have add ons to the RFP requirements, only to things that were not originally included.
6. Here's a new piece of information, and I hope that hoteliers will respond to this and let us know if it is true. And if so, could it work elsewhere in our industry? So here's the claim: Most hotels have an automatic RFP response system. They are too busy to respond to the RFP by reading the requirements in it. The system reads the event dates and automatically populates a response/proposal to be accordingly emailed back to the RFP sender (event company). If the RFP sender is really serious, he/she will contact the hotel to follow up. So the hotel doesn't work on it when they receive the RFP, only if the sender follows up.
The sender (event company) had sent an RFP that was clearly written as six (6) bullet point items which were main decision points for their client's event project. Not one hotel gave a complete response to those six points in their proposals. In order to collect relevant data, back and forth email traffic took place to ascertain all the needed information.
Hmmmm... when am I "too busy" to read an RFP?
The consensus is obvious: Everyone, planner, supplier, hotelier... everyone wants the process to change. And it seems to all boil down to qualifying the business from both points of view. Let's keep on working on this together, okay? Let's share our thoughts on solutions. I think we have a good handle on the challenges. As all of us would tell our employees: Don't come to me with the problem. Come to me with the problem and your proposed solution.
Let's open up a discussion of this additional dilemma. Many of you had one major issue: clients "stealing" our ideas. If the RFP calls for creative ideas, what can we put in place to protect ourselves from this unethical behavior? Any opinions out there on this topic? If so, I'll use them to further our discussion.
Let's all work together to disrupt things and change them up so everyone benefits. Okay?
Andrea Michaels is the founder and president of Extraordinary Events, an international, multi-award-winning event agency based in Los Angeles. She is the author of Reflections of a Successful Wallflower: Lessons in Business; Lessons in Life. She may be reached via amichaels@extraordinaryevents.com.
