RFP Fundamentals

Access this expert-led webinar instantly, available anytime on-demand.

5.0
Included in All-Access Membership
Live Webinar - no upcoming date
Customer Satisfaction Guarantee Learn with confidence. If you're not happy, we'll make it right. That's our guarantee.

Purchase Options

Select an attendee quantity to add to cart.

Recorded Webinar Only

$219.00
or

All Access Membership

The Aurora All Access Membership is designed to provide you with the training that you want when you want it. You will have 100% access to every live webinar, on demand webinar, professional alert, and podcast that Aurora Training Advantage offers with no additional cost.

Learn More About Our All Access Membership
$599.00
All Access Membership

Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) process can be complex, especially when aligning internal teams and external vendors for a successful outcome. This comprehensive webinar will provide you with essential tools and strategies to effectively create, manage, and evaluate RFPs and Scoring Matrixes. You'll gain a clear understanding of when to use an RFP versus a Request for Information (RFI), how to structure scoring processes, and how to guide evaluation teams through a fair and defensible selection process.

Whether you're new to RFP development or looking to refine your current approach, this session offers valuable insights into structuring your RFP documents with both mandatory and technical requirements, assigning weighted criteria, and working with stakeholders who may be unfamiliar with procurement processes. You'll also learn how to avoid common pitfalls and ensure your RFPs lead to successful vendor engagements—even when awarding multiple contracts from a single RFP.

Your Benefits for Attending:
  • How to use an RFP and when an RFI is helpful
  • How to draft and use a scoring matrix
  • How to work with and instruct a team assigned to score an RFP
  • How to structure the RFP document using mandatory and technical requirements
  • How to evaluate cost as part of the RFP process
  • How to assign weighted criteria
  • How to facilitate the drafting of the matrix with the RFP
  • How to work with staff unfamiliar with the process of an RFP
  • How to ensure a successful outcome with the vendor community
  • How to award multiple contracts from one RFP

This webinar is ideal for procurement professionals, project managers, and public sector staff seeking to streamline their procurement processes and drive better outcomes. You’ll walk away with actionable tools and frameworks that will make your next RFP process more effective, efficient, and equitable.

Level: Basic
Format: Live Webcast
Instructional Method: Group Internet Based
NASBA Field of Study: Management Services (2 hours)
Program Prerequisites: None
Advance Preparation: No
  1. Introduction
  2. Definitions 00:03:23
  3. Request for Proposal - Best Value 00:13:55
  4. Drafting an RFP 00:19:21
  5. RFP Table of Contents 00:36:08
  6. RFP Table of Contents Cont’d 00:40:17
  7. Drafting RFPs (Cont’d) 00:46:52
  8. Drafting RFPs (Cont’d) 00:53:02
  9. RFP Evaluation Process 00:55:34
  10. RFP - Evaluation Process (Cont’d) 01:03:04
  11. RFP - Evaluation Process (Cont’d) 01:07:31
  12. Request for Proposal Example 01:14:06
  13. Evaluation Instructions 01:14:51
  14. Example Weighted Criteria Listed in the RFP Document 01:16:06
  15. Identify Mandatory Pass/Fail Sections in the RFP Document 01:16:32
  16. Response Instructions 01:17:46
  17. Mandatory Check List Sample 01:18:26
  18. Sample Evaluation Language for Your RFP 01:18:57
  19. Phase 1 01:19:36
  20. Phase 2 01:19:49
  21. Phase 3 01:20:04
  22. Recommended Cost Formula 01:20:25
  23. References 01:21:57
  24. Collection RFP Evaluation Scoring Criteria 01:22:56
  25. Collection Procedures and Example Correspondence 01:23:46
  26. RFP for Collection Agencies - Questions for Contractor’s References Form 01:26:54
  27. Number of Year’s Experience in Company-Based Collection Services 01:
  28. References 01:28:10
  29. Documented Experience Collecting for Multiple Similar Organizations 01:29:47
  30. Financial Stability 01:30:24
  31. Z-Score 01:31:19
  32. Final Rating Sheet 01:31:59
  33. Summary of Evaluation Team 01:32:27
  34. Time Line - Request for Proposals 01:34:34
  35. Pitfalls 01:35:18
  36. Presentation Closing 01:39:21
  • Kenneth Jones

    Kenneth Jones

    Ken Jones has been working in the public and non-profit procurement field for over 30 years. He worked for the New York State Office of Taxation and Finance as a Purchasing Assistant from 1985-87 and went on to work for the University at Albany, SUNY where he served as a Purchasing Agent and in 1999 [...]

    View Full Profile

CPE Credit

Continuing Professional Education

Aurora Training Advantage is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www.nasbaregistry.org.

For more information regarding administrative policies such as complaint and refund, and cancellation please contact our offices at 407-542-4317 or [email protected].

You must answer all questions during the webinar, view the recording completely and pass the test at the end with 70% correct answers to receive CPE credit.

ISM Credit

Institute of Supply Management

This program may be used for Continuing Education Hours (CEH) toward recertification for programs offered by the Institute for Supply Management®, including the Certified Professional in Supply Management® and Certified Professional in Supplier Diversity®.

QPANJ Credit

Qualified Purchasing Agent - New Jersey

ATAPU Credit

Aurora Training Advantage is offering continuing education points designed to recognize dedication to training and excellence in purchasing.
  • Asset 01:30:34
  • Audit 00:17:14, 01:31:16
  • Bankruptcy 01:31:25
  • Bid 00:03:42 00:05:58, 00:11:57, 00:50:55
  • Contract 00:25:39, 00:40:22, 00:45:56, 01:13:23
  • Cost 00:02:57, 00:03:15, 00:05:45, 00:08:24, 00:14:07, 00:18:42, 00:50:58, 01:03:11, 01:07:51, 01:20:39
  • Financial Statements 01:00:23 , 01:31:
  • Liability 01:30:35
  • Procurement 00:00:18, 00:02:48, 00:18:45, 00:45:5, 01:18:36, 01:32:31
  • Request For Information (RFI) 00:00:04, 00:08:35, 01:09:52
  • Request for Proposal (RFP) 00:02:34, 00:03:34, 00:08:09, 00:12:06, 01:13:58, 00:19:32, 00:40:25, 00:55:42, 01:07:40, 01:11:04, 01:14:11, 01:16:39, 01:23:57, 01:35:15
  • Revenue 01:30:37
  • Scoring Matrix 00:09:31, 00:17:01, 00:19:30, 00:47:27, 00:55:42, 01:13:31, 01:22:03, 01:29:57, 01:32:49
  • Vendor 00:03:00, 00:04:17, 00:13:29, 00:24:18, 00:28:18, 00:38:41, 00:45:47, 01:08:21, 01:09:53, 01:17:53, 01:30:13
  • Weighted Criteria 01:16:13
  • Z-Score 01:31:21

Asset: Property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments or legacies.

Audit: A formal examination of an organization's or individual's accounts or financial situation

Bankruptcy: is a legal proceeding in which a debtor declares their inability to pay back their creditors.

Bid: A bid is an offer made by an investor, trader, or dealer in an effort to buy an asset or to compete for a contract.

Contract: A written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Cost: The sum of the applicable expenditures and charges directly or indirectly incurred in bringing an article to its existing condition and location

Financial Statement: Financial statements (or financial reports) are formal records of the financial activities and position of a business, person, or other entity. ... A balance sheet or statement of financial position, reports on a company's assets, liabilities, and owners equity at a given point in time.

Liability: In financial accounting, a liability is defined as the future sacrifices of economic benefits that the entity is obliged to make to other entities as a result of past transactions or other past events, the settlement of which may result in the transfer or use of assets, provision of services or other yielding of economic benefits in the future.

Procurement: Procurement is the process of finding and agreeing to terms, and acquiring goods, services, or works from an external source, often via a tendering or competitive bidding process. Procurement is used to ensure the buyer receives goods, services, or works at the best possible price when aspects such as quality, quantity, time, and location are compared.

Request For Information (RFI): A request for information is a common business process whose purpose is to collect written information about the capabilities of various suppliers. Normally it follows a format that can be used for comparative purposes. An RFI is primarily used to gather information to help make a decision on what steps to take next.

Request for Proposal (RFP): A request for proposal (RFP) is a document that solicits proposal, often made through a bidding process, by an agency or company interested in procurement of a commodity, service, or valuable asset, to potential suppliers to submit business proposals.

Revenue: In accounting, revenue is the income that a business has from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. Revenue is also referred to as sales or turnover. Some companies receive revenue from interest, royalties, or other fees.

Scoring Matrix: A tool that helps you evaluate multiple options based on a set of criteria.

Vendor: A vendor is a person or business that supplies goods or services to a company. Another term for the vendor is the supplier. In many situations, a company presents the vendor with a purchase order stating the goods or services needed, the price, delivery date, and other terms.

Weighted Criteria: Weighted criteria is a two-part type of best value procurement in which bidding firms submit a technical component and price component to the STA. The STA scores the technical component using pre-determined criteria that are weighted according to pre-determined importance. Then, the price component is analyzed.

Z-Score: The Z-score formula for predicting bankruptcy was published in 1968 by Edward I. Altman, who was, at the time, an Assistant Professor of Finance at New York University. The formula may be used to predict the probability that a firm will go into bankruptcy within two years.

Customer Satisfaction Guarantee
Invest in your future with confidence! Our Customer Satisfaction Guarantee eliminates all risk, letting you focus purely on mastering new skills and advancing your career. If you're not completely satisfied, we'll ensure you are. Your satisfaction is not just a promise; it's our guarantee.

Webinar Survey Overall Rating

This webinar received a total of 1 survey responses. Attendees have given an average rating of 5.0 stars out of a possible 5, reflecting the quality and value of the content presented.

Average rating

5.0 / 5
Webinar Presentation
How many of the objectives of the event were met?
5.0 Stars
How useful was the information presented at this event?
5.0 Stars
Overall, how satisfied were you with this event?
5.0 Stars
Speaker Performance
Overall, how satisfied were you with this presenter?
5.0 Stars
How closely did the presenter follow the schedule?
5.0 Stars

Reviews From Webinar Survey

Our webinars are crafted to deliver exceptional value and insight to business professionals. Below, you'll find genuine feedback from attendees.

Itsuko B.
November 26, 2025
5.0 / 5
Webinar Rating:
5.0 Stars
Speaker Rating:
5.0 Stars
Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns?
I wish he had told us the correct answer for the polling question

Frequently Asked Questions

A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a formal procurement document issued by an organization to solicit competitive bids from qualified vendors for a product, service, or project. Unlike a simple quote or bid, an RFP invites vendors to propose their approach, methodology, qualifications, and pricing — allowing the buyer to evaluate not just cost but overall value, capability, and fit. Organizations should use an RFP when the requirement is complex, when multiple vendors are capable of meeting the need in different ways, when objectivity and transparency are required (particularly in the public sector), or when the value of the contract justifies a structured competitive process. RFPs are ideal for technology implementations, professional services, outsourced operations, and large capital projects. In contrast, a Request for Information (RFI) is used earlier in the process to gather general market information and assess vendor capabilities before committing to a formal procurement. Understanding when to use an RFP versus an RFI, or a simpler Request for Quote (RFQ), is the first step to running an effective procurement process.
A well-structured RFP document is the foundation of a successful procurement process. It should begin with an introduction describing the organization, the project background, and the purpose of the RFP. Next, it should clearly define the scope of work, deliverables, and performance expectations. The RFP should then establish the submission requirements — format, length, required sections, and the deadline for proposals. A key structural element is the separation of mandatory (pass/fail) requirements from technical evaluation criteria: mandatory requirements represent non-negotiable baseline qualifications, while technical criteria are scored on a weighted basis. The cost evaluation methodology should be described separately, including the formula used to score pricing relative to technical merit. The document should include information about the evaluation process, timeline, and selection criteria so vendors can tailor their proposals effectively. A strong table of contents, clear instructions, and precise language reduce vendor confusion, improve proposal quality, and simplify the evaluation process for internal stakeholders.
A scoring matrix is the structured evaluation tool that allows procurement teams to assess vendor proposals objectively and consistently across multiple criteria. The matrix lists all evaluation criteria in rows, with weighted percentage values assigned to each based on their relative importance to the organization's priorities. Common categories include technical approach, vendor qualifications and experience, references, implementation plan, and cost. Each evaluator assigns a numerical score to each vendor's response in each category, which is then multiplied by the assigned weight to produce a weighted score. Summing all weighted scores produces each vendor's total evaluation score, enabling a direct, defensible comparison. Developing the scoring matrix before issuing the RFP — and ideally including example scoring language in the RFP itself — ensures evaluators apply consistent standards and reduces subjectivity. The matrix also provides legal protection in public sector procurements by creating a documented, auditable record of how the selection decision was made. Calibrating evaluators before scoring begins, and holding a post-scoring review to reconcile significant discrepancies, further strengthens the integrity of the process.
Even well-intentioned RFP processes can fail due to avoidable pitfalls that compromise vendor engagement, evaluation integrity, or contract outcomes. One of the most common mistakes is writing requirements that are too vague — leaving vendors to interpret scope differently, resulting in incomparable proposals. Conversely, over-specifying requirements to favor a preferred vendor creates legal and ethical risks. Another frequent error is failing to communicate evaluation criteria and their relative weights to vendors, reducing the quality and comparability of responses. Inadequate time for vendor questions and proposal preparation results in incomplete or poorly tailored submissions. Evaluation team members who lack familiarity with the RFP process or the subject matter introduce inconsistency and subjectivity into scoring. Post-award, organizations that fail to document the vendor selection rationale expose themselves to protest risk, particularly in public procurement. Finally, awarding solely on lowest cost without adequate consideration of technical merit often leads to poor contract outcomes. Running structured evaluator training sessions, building adequate timelines, and using standardized tools consistently are the most effective countermeasures.
Yes, awarding multiple contracts from a single RFP is a common and effective strategy, particularly in the public sector and for large-scale or multi-component procurements. This approach creates a pre-qualified vendor pool from which the organization can draw for individual task orders or projects over a defined contract period, reducing procurement cycle time for subsequent engagements. The RFP should explicitly state that multiple awards may be made, describe how the awards will be structured, and define the process for task order placement among awarded vendors — for example, a rotation system, mini-competition among the pool, or direct selection based on specific capability. Weighted evaluation criteria still apply, and all vendors meeting the qualification threshold may be awarded a position in the pool. Multi-award contracts provide organizations with flexibility, continuity of qualified vendors, and competitive pricing through ongoing mini-competitions for individual tasks. They are widely used for professional services, IT staffing, facilities management, and other requirements where needs evolve frequently and a variety of specialized vendor capabilities may be required at different times.