Every AEC firm has stories about frustrating procurement experiences. Cumbersome RFPs. Endless forms. Redundant questions. Submission requirements that seem to grow with every new opportunity. While it’s easy to blame “the system,” the procurement process has its place. And it isn’t going away. Instead of complaining, the logical approach is to ask this question: How can we influence the process to produce better outcomes for everyone involved?
This issue of The Friedman File explores how stronger client relationships, better conversations and a more thoughtful approach to procurement can help firms spend less time on RFP responses and more time helping clients make better decisions.
When Process Overtakes Purpose
For most AEC firms, responding to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) is just part of doing business. Every requirement in today’s procurement process was originally created for a good reason, whether that’s fairness, transparency, risk management, documentation or compliance. Viewed individually, they usually make sense.
The problem is that procurement processes rarely become simpler over time. Requirements accumulate. Forms multiply. New technology often does little more than automate existing processes, amplifying the deficiencies rather than improving them. Before long, what began as a thoughtful process for selecting the best team has evolved into a maddening administrative nightmare for everyone involved.
Respondents aren’t the only ones who suffer. While AEC firms hoping to win their next project invest significant time producing proposals, the RFP’s sponsors also spend hours reviewing them. Unfortunately, much of this effort is focused on administrative minutiae. Were all of the seemingly endless requirements met? Did they check every box? What flaw can we identify that disqualifies a submittal?
And yet, most of this tedious work has little to do with better decisions, partnerships or project outcomes.
The good news is that AEC firms aren’t powerless. While we may not control the procurement process itself, we don’t have to be its passive victims. The key is to recognize that we can often exert substantial influence long before an RFP is ever released.
Transactional vs. Relational Procurement
The biggest procurement mistake that an AEC firm can make is believing that the procurement process begins when the RFP is released. By then, everyone’s attention shifts to deadlines, forms, submission requirements and compliance. The relationship takes a back seat to the paperwork.
That’s why successful firms pursue clients, not project opportunities. Firms that understand a client’s business, challenges and priorities before procurement begins are far better positioned to ask thoughtful questions, offer meaningful ideas and ultimately submit stronger proposals. More importantly, these early conversations can improve the procurement process itself.
Erin Miller, former senior principal and regional director of business development for SmithGroup and now founder of First Cliff AEC Consulting, believes that firms should focus much more energy on trying to influence the procurement factors they can.
“I’m a firm believer in managing what we can control,” she says. “That starts with relationships. Are we investing in becoming known before procurement? Are we managing relationships at all levels? When you’ve built a trusted relationship, you often find yourself in a position to influence procurement, from the prequalification requirements of the RFP right down to the questions asked in the shortlist interview.”
The objective isn’t to gain an unfair advantage or an inside track. It’s to become a trusted resource before anyone even begins drafting an RFP. Clients benefit when procurement documents more accurately reflect what they’re trying to accomplish, and firms benefit when they’re evaluated on the factors that truly matter.
“Mending the Gap”
Miller reminds us that the people writing the procurement documents are rarely the ones who ultimately work with the consultant. As a result, requirements written into the RFP can become disconnected from the organization’s actual needs. That’s another reason why early conversations matter. They help bridge the gap between procurement and project teams so that RFPs ask better questions and evaluate the qualities that will ultimately determine project success.
Of course, the opportunities to influence procurement vary considerably by client. Federal agencies and many state organizations operate within procurement rules that leave little room for flexibility. Private-sector clients often have more discretion, while higher education, healthcare and local governments tend to fall somewhere in between.
Even in the most structured environments, however, firms aren’t without opportunities. Relationships still matter. Asking thoughtful questions, participating in pre-proposal meetings, providing constructive feedback after selections and becoming a trusted resource over time can all contribute to better procurement without compromising fairness or transparency.
One way organizations are addressing this disconnect is through the growing use of Owners’ Project Managers (OPMs), particularly for institutional clients.
“Good OPMs give incredible thought and care to the bid list they’re putting together,” says Miller. “They’re an unbiased party that puts the best firms in front of the client. The good ones serve as really supportive facilitators and mediators. They ask better questions, simplify the process and help bridge the gap between procurement and the people actually making the project decisions.”
Case Study: What Good Procurement Looks Like
Perhaps unsurprisingly, AEC firms are not immune to repeating the same bad procurement habits they find so frustrating.
Recently, three firms searching for a strategic planning consultant reached out to Friedman & Partners with essentially the same objective: identify the right advisor to help guide the organization’s next stage of growth. Yet their approaches to procurement couldn’t have been more different.
Two followed the traditional path. They issued detailed RFPs outlining submission requirements, proposal formats, evaluation criteria and deadlines. Everything was technically sound, but the emphasis was immediately placed on producing a compliant proposal.
The third firm took a step back.
Rather than immediately requesting proposals, the project lead acknowledged that they were still determining the best path forward. Before deciding whether to hire an outside consultant, or even establishing which qualifications were most important, they wanted to speak with several experienced practitioners to better understand different approaches, methodologies and perspectives.
The invitation included this statement: “At this stage, we are not looking for a proposal. Rather, we are hoping to learn from a variety of experienced practitioners and determine the best approach for our next chapter as a firm.”
This single sentence reframed the entire engagement. Rather than forcing consultants to guess what the client wanted and invest hours preparing a formal proposal, the process began with a conversation.
The objective wasn’t to evaluate proposal-writing skills. It was to better understand how each consultant thought, approached challenges and could help the organization achieve its goals.
And instead of asking consultants to prove what they’d done, it invited them to discuss what they could accomplish together.
That’s exactly how professional services procurement should work.
Once these conversations identify the most qualified candidates, that’s the time to ask for proposals. By this point, both the client and the consultants have a much clearer understanding of the objectives, the challenges and what success should look like.
Professional services aren’t commodities. Chemistry, judgment and communication all matter. These qualities are difficult to evaluate from a written proposal alone. They become much clearer through meaningful dialogue.
The Lesson: People Before Paper
As hard as it may be for AEC firms to break away from the proposal trap, the broader lesson is straightforward. Procurement is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Its purpose is to help clients identify the right partner for that specific project.
Miller says that this realization offers an opportunity that AEC firms can’t ignore.
“Collectively, as an industry, I think we need to rethink how much time and energy we’re wasting by putting paper before people,” she says. “Once an RFP is released, we all tend to put our heads down and simply respond to what’s in front of us instead of picking up the phone, asking questions and having better conversations. But that’s how we can begin to ‘mend the gap’ between procurement and the people ultimately responsible for making the project decisions.”
The firms that consistently achieve the best results understand this. They pursue clients, not project opportunities. They invest in relationships before opportunities arise, ask better questions and help clients think more clearly about what they’re trying to accomplish long before an RFP is ever written.
These individual efforts have a cumulative effect. Sure, they can help win one pursuit or one project. But collectively, this approach could help create a procurement process that delivers better outcomes for clients, consultants and the industry as a whole.
What are your thoughts on this subject? And what is your firm doing to help improve your chances of success in the procurement process? Let me know at rich@friedmanpartners.com or call 508-397-9213.
