Gov Purchasing
Changing the RFP Process
By Michael Asner
May 19, 2005, 15:37

How much change can you make in the RFP process once the RFP has been issued? Can you change the due date? Can you modify the requirements or other information contained in the RFP?

Before attempting to answer these questions, let's identify the types of changes that may be considered and their significance.

The first category is that of "no change" or "minor change," including modifications to correct minor errors, ambiguities, and typos. Second, there is "changing the deadline." Finally, there are "material changes" -- changes in the published evaluation criteria or weights, in the mandatory conditions, and major changes in the requirements or technical information provided in the RFP.

The rules regarding change are established governing law, policies, information contained in the RFP, and established practices. The nature of permissible changes varies within and between jurisdictions. There is no established standard in this area. The discussion that follows deals with each type of change and how it each is handled in different jurisdictions and organizations.

No Change

Obviously, change disrupts the smooth execution of the process. Too much change and suppliers will abandon their efforts to prepare an effective proposal. Ideally, there are no changes in the RFP as issued. This idealized situation does occur, but infrequently. Minor changes are common. However, even with minor changes, there is a limit to the amount of change that can be introduced while maintaining a managed process.

Radical changes in RFPs after they are issued are unusual and will probably result in cancellation of the RFP. Some organizations, rather than suffering the embarrassment of canceling an RFP, simply let it run its course and then award no contract.

Minor Change

These changes are often identified by the issuer in reviewing the RFP that has been issued, or in response to phone calls from suppliers about obvious omissions, error or ambiguities in the RFP. It is common practice for organizations to amend RFPs shortly after they have been issued. In some jurisdictions, this practice is sanctioned by law or by policy.

Extension of the Deadline

Sometimes, for quite legitimate reasons, the deadline for submission is extended. However, this change is, at best, awkward. At worst, it is unfair and may be challenged by a supplier.

In open competitions, some suppliers may receive the RFP and, on the basis of the deadline, decide to "no bid." In reviewing the document, they concluded that there wasn't sufficient time for them to prepare a proper proposal. If, two weeks later, the issuer announces an extension of the deadline by two weeks, they still may "no bid." The extensions provided them with no additional time. Those firms, on the other hand, that had begun to create their proposal when they received the RFP, would have an extra two weeks to prepare. For these reasons, firms that initially decided to "no bid" may be aggrieved by the extension and complain about the fairness of the process.

In competitions where the suppliers were prequalified and therefore known to the issuer, the issuer could seek the agreement of all the potential bidders to the extension. In this case, if accepted by all, it would be implemented. If not, the original deadline would survive. To do otherwise would risk a challenge to the fairness of the process.

In competitions where all of the suppliers attend the suppliers meeting, the issuer could seek agreement as with the pre-qualified group.

In some jurisdictions, this practice is sanctioned by law or by policy.

Material Changes

Material changes involve important new data or substantial changes in the content of the RFP. For example, material changes would be: published weight of an evaluation factor was increased from 10 percent to 50 percent; a new mandatory condition was imposed; or 10 pages of new detailed requirements were added. All of these constitute material changes.

It is difficult to introduce major changes and still defend the process as being fair. Often, organizations are forced to cancel the RFP when these types of changes are identified. It is much easier to "get it right" the first time.

In some jurisdictions, the introduction of major changes after issuing the RFP is prohibited by law, by policy or by practice.