In my years consulting in the development sector, I've seen organizations and experts alike invest immense effort into the Request for Proposal process. Yet, all too often, that effort is squandered by a few recurring, fixable flaws. Here, we dissect four overlooked flaws in the RFP process—and provide simple fixes that enhance fairness, credibility, and outcomes for everyone involved.

1. The Eligibility Trap: When Critical Rules Are Buried

One of the most avoidable problems in RFPs is burying or omitting crucial eligibility criteria. Potential applicants may spend dozens of hours developing a detailed proposal only to discover they were never qualified to apply. Two key pieces of information are frequently misplaced:

• Nationality Restrictions:  If an opportunity is limited to nationals of the implementation country, this must be stated clearly and prominently at the very beginning of the RFP.
• Applicant Type:  Whether the call is for firms, companies, and NGOs or for individual consultants is a fundamental detail that should be immediately clear.This isn't just an efficiency issue; it's a fundamental breakdown in  transparency  that undermines the  fairness  of the entire competition from the outset. Placing these non-negotiable requirements upfront allows applicants to self-screen instantly, saving countless hours and ensuring a pool of genuinely qualified candidates.

2. The Credibility Killer: Suspiciously Short Deadlines

A suspiciously short deadline is more than a red flag; it's a symptom of a flawed process. When an RFP for a complex, multi-sectoral assignment lasting up to a year allows only three or four days for submission, it sends a clear and discouraging signal to experienced applicants, undermining the  credibility  of the entire process....raise concerns about whether the call is genuinely competitive or simply a formality to proceed with a pre-identified consultant.Realistic timelines are essential for ensuring  fairness  and equal opportunity. They allow qualified candidates the time needed to prepare thoughtful, high-quality proposals, which ultimately benefits the contracting organization by attracting the best possible responses.

3. The AI Blind Spot: When Automation Goes Wrong

A new quality issue is emerging: the publication of unreviewed, AI-generated content in RFPs. When AI-drafted text is published without proper human oversight, it can introduce confusing definitions and incorrect terminology. For example, in an RFP for a project in Jordan, the acronym "EMV" was mistakenly expanded as "Environmental Monitoring Verification" when it should have referred to the "Economic Modernization Vision."This erodes an applicant's confidence in the organization's technical competence and attention to detail, directly impacting its  credibility . A simple technical review by a human before publication would easily prevent these embarrassing and confusing mistakes.

4. The Communication Black Hole: The Silence After "Send"

After investing significant time preparing and submitting a proposal, the subsequent silence can be one of the most frustrating aspects of the process. Failing to provide any post-submission communication is a breach of professional norms. This silence devalues the significant investment of time and expertise applicants have made, treating them as disposable inputs rather than potential partners.Two simple acts can transform this experience:

• Send a "regret" notification:  A short, templated email to unsuccessful applicants is a small effort that shows respect for their work.
• Provide brief feedback:  Whenever possible, including a brief note on why a proposal was not selected (e.g., on technical, financial, or eligibility grounds) is incredibly helpful.This isn't just about courtesy; it's about brand management in the talent marketplace. Top-tier consultants have choices. An organization known for its communication black hole will eventually find its RFPs ignored by the very experts it seeks to attract.

Conclusion: Small Fixes, Big Impact

Improving these seemingly minor aspects of the RFP process has a major positive effect. By making these simple changes, organizations can significantly strengthen the  fairness ,  credibility , and overall quality of their procurement, creating a more efficient and respectful process for everyone involved.What is one simple change you've seen that dramatically improved a procurement process?