Scope, evaluation criteria and the mistakes we see most when procurement has to select a broker, consultant or property with a clear trail.
A useful RFP defines what a good outcome looks like before you go to market.
The first page has to say what it is for
Context, timing, response format and who will read it inside (procurement, legal, real estate). If that is missing, each vendor interprets the scope their own way. At RISER the cover is sober, sections are numbered and annexes are standardized: less theatre, more clarity.
Weighted criteria, not a generic list
Sector experience, method, assigned team, references you can check, and the commercial proposal. All of that has to be evaluable, with weights agreed in the brief. If the matrix is shared with committee before offers come in, last-minute debates are avoided and the process holds.
What is delivered, in what format, and when
Say whether it is a report, a tour, a shortlist or due diligence; whether it goes out as PDF, deck or Excel; and the date. Also the assumptions, the exclusions and a single point of contact. An ambiguous RFP multiplies clarifications and makes the responses incomparable.
Mistakes we see often
Fuzzy scope, impossible timelines, no evaluation matrix, technical annexes that do not match, and mixing an advisory role with a transactional incentive without saying so. Fixing that before launch saves weeks of friction and improves what comes back.
