How to Run a Restricted RFP

A restricted Request for Proposal limits the field of respondents to a pre-qualified shortlist. This is different from an open tender, where any organisation can respond.

Restricted processes are used when the field of capable vendors is genuinely limited, when the complexity of the requirement means evaluating a large volume of responses would be impractical, or when the organisation has identified vendors through a prior market engagement and wants to proceed with a targeted process.

The key governance requirement of a restricted process is that the selection of respondents to invite must itself be defensible. If the invitation list cannot be explained and justified, the procurement is vulnerable to challenge regardless of how well the evaluation process is run.

Designing the invitation criteria

The organisations invited to participate in a restricted RFP should be selected against documented criteria, not selected by internal stakeholders based on preference or familiarity.

Invitation criteria typically cover: demonstrated capability and experience with the specific technology type and scale, financial standing, references from comparable engagements, and any mandatory compliance requirements (security clearances, data sovereignty, certifications).

The criteria should be applied consistently across all organisations being considered for invitation. The decision on who to invite - and who not to invite - should be documented, with the reasoning recorded against the criteria.

The number of respondents invited should be sufficient to create genuine competition. As a rough guide, three to five respondents is usually the right range for a restricted technology RFP. Fewer than three removes competition; more than five creates evaluation overhead that may not produce proportionally better outcomes.

Building the evaluation framework

The evaluation framework is the most important document in the RFP process. It determines whether the evaluation produces a defensible outcome.

An effective evaluation framework has three components:

Weighted criteria categories. The major evaluation dimensions - technical capability, commercial offer, implementation approach, organisational capability, references - each weighted to reflect their relative importance to this specific procurement. The weightings should be set before the RFP is issued, not after the responses are received.

Scoring criteria for each category. Within each category, specific criteria that define what a high score, a medium score and a low score look like. Vague scoring criteria lead to inconsistent scoring across evaluators. Well-defined criteria allow evaluators to score independently and produce results that are defensible.

A consolidated scoring approach. A mechanism for combining individual evaluator scores into a panel score, addressing inconsistencies between evaluators, and producing a ranked outcome. This process should be documented and consistently applied.

The financial/commercial offer is typically evaluated separately from the technical/capability assessment and combined at the end. This prevents the price from biasing the capability assessment.

Probity obligations

Probity in a procurement context means maintaining the fairness and integrity of the process. Probity obligations are not optional - they are governance requirements that protect the organisation against challenge and protect the evaluation panel against allegations of bias or improper conduct.

The core probity obligations in a restricted RFP:

Conflict of interest. Every member of the evaluation panel must declare any actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest before the evaluation begins. Conflicts must be managed - either by excluding the person from the relevant evaluation or by documenting the conflict and the management approach.

Information management. All respondents must receive the same information. If a question is asked by one respondent that results in a clarification, the clarification must be provided to all respondents. Contact between the evaluation panel and respondents during the evaluation period must be managed through a single point of contact and documented.

Record-keeping. The evaluation records - scoring sheets, panel deliberations, conflict of interest declarations, all correspondence with respondents - must be retained. These records are the defence against a challenge to the procurement outcome.

Separation of roles. The evaluation panel evaluates and recommends. The decision-maker approves. These are different roles and should not be conflated. The delegate approver should not be a member of the evaluation panel.

Managing clarifications

Respondents will almost always seek clarification on some aspect of the RFP. This is normal and should be expected.

The clarification process should be documented in the RFP: how questions should be submitted, when the cut-off for questions is, and how responses will be provided.

Responses to clarification questions should be provided to all respondents, not just the one who asked. This prevents individual respondents from gaining an informational advantage and ensures the evaluation is based on comparable responses.

Clarification questions sometimes reveal an ambiguity or error in the RFP. If that is the case, issue an addendum to the RFP with the correction and a reasonable extension to the response deadline if necessary.

Running the BAFO

A Best and Final Offer process is used to invite shortlisted respondents to revise their proposal after the initial evaluation. It allows the organisation to give respondents an opportunity to sharpen their commercial offer and address specific gaps or concerns identified in the evaluation.

The BAFO must be run carefully to maintain probity. The key requirements:

Define the permitted scope of revision. A BAFO is not an invitation to submit a fundamentally different proposal. The BAFO request should specify what can be revised - typically commercial terms and specific technical items - and what cannot.

Apply the same disclosure to all shortlisted respondents. If you are providing feedback on initial responses to help respondents improve their BAFO submission, the level of feedback must be consistent. Providing detailed feedback to one respondent and minimal feedback to another creates a process integrity issue.

Document the BAFO evaluation clearly. The comparison between initial and BAFO proposals should be documented, with clear reasoning for how the BAFO submissions have changed the evaluation outcome.

The recommendation report

The procurement recommendation report is the document that supports the delegate approval decision. It must be written to address the questions a decision-maker will have: who won, why, and is the process sound?

A complete recommendation report covers: the procurement process summary, the evaluation methodology, the evaluation outcome and rankings, the recommended vendor and the basis for the recommendation, the commercial terms, the implementation risk, and any conditions or requirements attached to the recommendation.

The recommendation should follow from the evaluation. If it does not - if there are good reasons to recommend a respondent who was not the highest-ranked on the evaluation scorecard - those reasons must be documented explicitly and be independently defensible.

---

The Procurement Evaluation Pack includes a weighted evaluation scorecard, evaluator guidance, probity checklist, BAFO request template and recommendation report structure. See the templates page for details.