Published on:

On this blog, RFP could also stand for Really Frequent Posts!

One of the most popular topics on this blog in the past two years has been competitive bid projects and the Requests for Proposal at their core.

The format and content of the RFP have enjoyed ample attention (See my post of Aug. 13, 2008: ask questions about flex-time arrangements; Sept. 26, 2008: no need for an NDA; Sept. 28, 2008: a 12-week RFP process; Sept. 28, 2008: lay out the format for responses; Sept. 28, 2008: boilerplate, guidelines and benchmarks; Feb. 7, 2009: five verboten questions; Feb. 12, 2009: four ideas to guide format of responses; April 2, 2009: pros and cons of specifying the format of response; April 15, 2009: attach your form of contract; July 20, 2009: ask about secondment; Sept. 12, 2010: question regarding protections against hackers; Sept. 17, 2009: poor historical data mars RFP; and Dec. 21, 2009: RFPs strengthen with benchmarks.).

How you run the project elicited several blog posts (See my post of Nov. 22, 2008: control of communications during the RFP activities; Nov. 23, 2008: don’t manage all the information flows; July 17, 2009: send to fewer firms to get greater effort; Nov. 23, 2009: set deadlines for responses; Nov. 30, 2009: the RFP process; April 16, 2009: favoring non-incumbents; July 1, 2010: expect questions from firms; and Dec. 17, 2009: send the RFP to nine law firms.).

Analysis of responses follows the steps above (See my post of April 4, 2008: rank law firms based on proposals; May 7, 2008: three ways to cull law firms; Dec. 9, 2009: articulate reasons for ranking law firm respondents; and April 16, 21009: quantify all responses.).

As you might imagine, law firms have views on RFPs (See my post of March 16, 2009: data on costs to respond to RFPs; March 31, 2009: “necessary evil” re law firms; March 31, 2009: primary firms will try to dissuade you from competitive selection; and Aug. 7, 2009: do not send “courtesy” RFPs.).

In a last category are those posts that step back and consider the propriety of competitive bidding overall (See my post of March 31, 2009: broad reach of matters covered by RFPs; Nov. 24, 2009: an alternative is direct talks with a few firms; Aug. 31, 2009: open books and discussions with select firms; March 16, 2009: seek feedback afterwards from firms; Sept. 9, 2009: no grounds for moving away from RFPs; Sept. 22, 2010: six criticisms; and Oct. 3, 2010: rebuttals to the six criticisms.).