Why I Don't Do RFPs - and Why Most MSPs Shouldn't Either

Requests for Proposals exist for a very specific purpose, but they are almost always used far outside of that context. At their core, Requests for Proposals are a procurement mechanism designed for large organizations—especially those operating in regulated environments. Government agencies are the classic example. In those cases, RFPs serve a compliance function: documenting requirements, ensuring fairness, and creating a defensible comparison process across multiple bidders. Most private businesses do not operate under those constraints. As organizations get smaller, the rationale for RFPs weakens quickly. In many small and mid-sized businesses, RFPs are written by people without deep subject matter expertise. These organizations are usually very clear about the problems they face, but far less certain about what the right solution should look like. What they don’t know is exactly how to solve those problems, which is precisely why they are seeking outside expertise in the first place. The flaw in the RFP process is that it asks buyers to define solution criteria before they truly understand the solution. Vendors are asked to respond not just to the problem, but to a pre-determined vision of how the problem should be addressed. Those assumptions get locked into the document early, often based on partial knowledge or outdated thinking, and everything downstream is constrained by them. The result is a buying process that optimizes for conformity rather than understanding. This is where the process breaks down. In theory, RFPs are meant to enable apples-to-apples comparisons. In practice, that level of formal comparison is rarely necessary in SMB buying decisions. Most of the time, there is a single decision-maker involved—maybe two, occasionally three. The vendors competing for the work are often peers, not massive enterprises with radically different delivery models. The decision ultimately comes down to confidence, trust, and the belief that one provider understands the business better than the others. Layering a rigid, document-heavy procurement process on top of that reality rarely improves outcomes—and often makes them worse. It replaces meaningful conversation with paperwork. It prioritizes compliance with a template over insight. It rewards vendors who are good at responding to RFPs, not necessarily those who are best equipped to solve the problem. Worse, RFPs actively undermine good solution selling. Effective engagements are collaborative. They require listening, iteration, and creativity. Providers bring their expertise to the table, challenge assumptions, and adapt solutions as new information emerges. RFPs discourage all of that. They freeze requirements too early, impose unnecessary boundaries, and make deviation feel like risk rather than value. They also add time and complexity to sales processes that don’t need either.

When the RFP Isn’t the Real Decision Here’s the part many service providers miss: even when an organization issues an RFP, it often isn’t mandatory in the way people assume. In many private businesses, RFPs are used out of habit, internal optics, or a desire to appear “thorough”—not because the organization is legally bound to the process. In those situations, what often works better is opting out of the document exchange and offering a discovery-led conversation instead. Most business owners are open to this because it shortens the decision cycle, replaces ambiguity with clarity, and moves them more quickly toward an outcome they actually care about. When you offer a way to get to the solution faster and with more clarity, you aren't being "difficult"—you're showing leadership. How to Pivot the Conversation If you want to break the cycle, you need to offer a superior alternative—not by refusing outright, but by reframing what value actually looks like. One effective approach is to lead with expertise. Rather than reacting to the RFP line by line, you can express concern that a static document may obscure the best solution. By proposing a short working session—something interactive, like a whiteboard discussion—you signal that your value lies in judgment and problem-solving, not document production. The implicit message is that assumptions should be challenged before money is spent. Another angle is risk mitigation. Many experienced providers operate under an informal rule against prescribing before diagnosing. Framing your response around that principle allows you to position a discovery conversation as the responsible choice, not a deviation from process. Instead of submitting a speculative quote, you’re offering a clearer roadmap based on actual understanding of the problem. A third approach emphasizes speed to value. Formal RFP processes often add weeks—or months—to projects that are already urgent. By offering a time-boxed working session with a clear exit if there’s no fit, you respect the buyer’s time while making it clear that results matter more than paperwork. In each case, the goal isn’t to reject the RFP outright. It’s to redirect the buyer toward a conversation that produces clarity faster than a document ever could. Why "Breaking the Rules" Works People routinely abandon their own procurement processes when they encounter someone they trust. Relationships, confidence, and perceived competence outweigh procedural purity far more often than vendors realize. This is where experienced MSPs differentiate themselves. Rather than competing on how well they fill out a spreadsheet, they compete on clarity and insight. You demonstrate value by engaging, not by complying.

If you can’t get the decision-maker to agree to a conversation, treat that as a qualification signal—not a sales obstacle. It usually indicates they value process more than partnership, which rarely leads to a healthy client relationship. My Rule: If There’s an RFP, I’m Still Selective For that reason, I’m selective about engaging with RFP-driven deals. Every bid carries real opportunity cost, and the wrong buying process is often an early warning sign of an unhealthy client relationship. I didn’t respond to them when I ran an MSP, and I still don’t now. If a deal requires a formal RFP response, I’m usually out. Occasionally, I’ll respond in a way that deliberately avoids the template—outlining how I would approach the problem and inviting a conversation instead of trying to score points on predefined criteria. That’s not stubbornness. It’s pragmatism. RFPs carry real cost in time, effort, and opportunity. More importantly, they signal a buying process that often devalues expertise in favor of process. When that happens, the odds of a healthy, collaborative client relationship drop sharply. My view of business is straightforward. You talk through the problem. You agree on what success looks like. You design a solution together. Then you write it down. That document is called a contract. For most MSPs and IT services companies, that level of simplicity isn’t reckless—it’s appropriate. Complexity should be driven by risk, scale, or regulatory necessity. Otherwise, it’s just process for process’s sake. There are, of course, exceptions. Regulated industries and government contracting don’t always offer a choice. In those environments, RFPs may be unavoidable. But even then, it’s worth asking a hard question at the end of the effort: was the work required to respond to that RFP actually worth it? In my experience, most of the time, the answer is no.