I just returned from San Diego where I co-instructed a CoreNet MCR course in Strategic Sourcing. The best part of teaching in CoreNet’s executive development program is the opportunity to learn from students during the program. I always return home, fair bursting with new ideas and a fresh perspective on changes in the industry. This time, it was interesting to learn that, despite the merger activity in the real estate service provider industry, the RFP process still ranks up there as a major irritant for the corporate real estate client (end users) as well as the service provider.

I wanted to take a look at how far we’ve come since a column I wrote for GlobeStreet.com in October, 2004. In that article, titled, “Looking For a Few Good RFPs”, I said that a good RFP must have a clearly defined scope of services, roll out under a realistic schedule, should not be procurement-led, must allow an apples to apples comparison, and should narrow the list to, ideally, two providers.

I’m not surprised to be here four years later and the issues that loomed large back then still cause angst today. So what happened, or didn’t happen, since 2004? Almost all of the San Diego class attendees, representing both service providers and end users, agreed that the RFP process is still a nightmare. From the service provider standpoint, I think the problem lies in trying to use an RFP response as a surrogate to a relationship. Think of it this way, if you have just one chance to impress someone, you can go about it two ways: you can be confident, professional, and attuned to the other individual, or you can be loud, flashy and all about yourself. End users participating in our class resoundingly said service providers are still focused heavily on themselves.

And what of the RFPs themselves? The ones I’ve seen lately vary greatly in terms of quality and quantity. I’ve seen well-constructed proposals that are no more than 50 pages and cover all the issues. I’ve also seen proposals that go on for 200 pages and get so detailed about process that no one can decipher what’s being communicated. I call this 200-page RFP approach “the thud factor” because it appears that the service provider is counting on winning business by sheer mass. Of course, the thud factor of an RFP does not necessarily mean the provider is qualified. It might mean they simply don’t know the answer to the questions that were asked. The answer is in there, but now it’s the prospective client’s job to find out exactly where. The advice to service providers from end user CoreNet class attendees? Don’t rely on the thud factor. Simply, in as few words as possible, respond to the questions to the best of your ability. And, as CoreNet instructors, if we did our job well, we’ve helped a few more end users know what questions to ask.

As a general rule, the more time and energy that the corporate real estate client invests in designing the RFP questions, the more likely the service provider can propose a solution that meets their requirements. The better the questioning, the easier for the end user client to find a provider that is best suited for their outsourcing needs. Keep in mind, unless the RFP process is a large cattle call, chances are you were invited because the end user client already knows enough about you. You already passed the entrance exam. From here, if you want to impress, drop the thud factor.

Vik Bangia vik.bangia@gmail.com is an independent corporate real estate outsourcing expert, management consultant and business strategist. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.