Selecting Vendors and RFP Drafting

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

4.5
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 and overwhelming, especially when it comes to building a qualified vendor pool and developing effective evaluation methods. This webinar is designed to provide Procurement Professionals and those involved in the RFP process with actionable tools and strategies to simplify and improve their procurement practices. From the creation of a vendor database to qualifying vendors through a Request for Information (RFI) and vendor responsibility review, participants will gain valuable insights into each critical step of the process.

The session will demystify the RFP process, offering practical guidance on drafting RFP terms, developing scoring matrices, and evaluating costs. Attendees will learn from a seasoned procurement expert who has managed numerous RFPs from inception to award. Whether you're new to procurement or looking to sharpen your skills, this program will enhance your ability to solicit, evaluate, and select the best vendors—while avoiding the common missteps that can lead to failed or non-compliant procurements.

Topics Covered:
  • Building and managing a vendor database
  • Creating a qualified vendor pool
  • Using RFIs and vendor responsibility checks to improve results
  • Drafting RFP terms and scoring criteria
  • Conducting technical and cost evaluations
  • Avoiding common RFP and procurement pitfalls
Your Benefits for Attending:
  • Gain a clear understanding of the components of an RFP, Scoring Matrix, and RFI
  • Learn how to create a qualified vendor pool and identify effective ways to build a vendor database
  • Understand how and when to use RFIs and vendor responsibility reviews to improve vendor quality
  • Explore real-world samples of RFP terms, technical scoring methods, and cost evaluation techniques
  • Discover strategies to avoid procurement pitfalls that can trigger audit issues or delays

This webinar will empower you with tools and best practices that can be applied immediately in your procurement role. You'll walk away with greater confidence in your ability to manage a successful RFP process from start to finish.

Who Should Attend:
Procurement Professionals, Contract Managers, Government Buyers, and anyone involved in drafting, issuing, or evaluating RFPs.

Level: Beginner
Format: Live webcast
Instructional Method: Group: Internet-based
NASBA Field of Study: Management Services (2 hours)
Program Prerequisites: None
Advance Preparation: None
  1. Introduction
  2. Topics To Be Covered 00:01:57
  3. Definitions 00:02:15
  4. Request For Information (RFI) 00:11:12
  5. Response Information 00:12:42
  6. Create Vendor Database 00:13:11
  7. Sample - Notice Of Intent To Bid 00:17:05
  8. Intent To Bid 00:19:25
  9. Vendor Responsibility 00:22:19
  10. Integrity - Contract Award 00:24:04
  11. Additional Vendor Responsibility Checks 00:25:03
  12. Vendor Responsibility Verification 00:28:10
  13. Casting A Wide Net 00:31:00
  14. Selecting Vendors 00:32:31
  15. Sample Request For Qualifications 00:34:38
  16. Vendor Reliability 00:35:49
  17. Assist Vendors In Determining Their Suitability For The Award 00:37:09
  18. Vendor Reliability Subcontracting 00:40:28
  19. Vendor Reliability Assignment 00:43:06
  20. Termination Clauses 00:44:09
  21. Termination Clauses Cont’d 00:45:45
  22. Termination Clauses Cont’d 00:46:48
  23. Request For Proposal Workshop 00:49:19
  24. Request For Proposal  - Best Value 00:49:35
  25. Drafting An RFP 00:53:13
  26. RFP Table Of Contents Sample 00:56:43
  27. RFP Table Of Contents Sample Cont’d 00:58:07
  28. Drafting RFP’s (Cont’d) 01:00:59
  29. Drafting RFP’s (Cont’d) 01:02:49
  30. RFP - Evaluation Process 01:06:53
  31. RFP - Evaluation Process (Cont’d) 01:10:00
  32. RFP - Evaluation Process (Cont’d) 01:13:50
  33. Request For Proposal (RFP) 01:16:24
  34. Instructions To Technical Evaluation Committee 01:17:51
  35. Example Weighted Criteria Listed In The RFP Document 01:18:41
  36. Identify Mandatory Pass/Fail Sections 01:19:45
  37. Response Instructions 01:20:55
  38. Mandatory Check List Sample 01:21:20
  39. Sample Evaluation Language For Your RFP 01:22:31
  40. Phase I 01:22:47
  41. Phase II 01:22:54
  42. Phase III 01:23:00
  43. Recommended Cost Formula 01:23:59
  44. References 01:24:24
  45. Collection RFP Evaluation Scoring Criteria 01:24:57
  46. Collection Procedures And Example Correspondence: 20% 01:26:22
  47. RFP For Collection Agencies Questions For Contractor’s References 01:28:11
  48. Number Of Year’s Experience In Company Based Collection Services: 15% 01:28:50
  49. References - 15% 01:29:53
  50. Documented Experience Collecting For Multiple Similar Organizations: 10% 01:30:07
  51. Financial Stability 01:30:57
  52. Z-Score: 5% 01:31:39
  53. Final Rating Sheet 01:32:28
  54. Summary Of Evaluation Team 01:32:39
  55. Time Line - Request For Proposals 01:34:13
  56. Pitfalls 01:34:40
  57. Presentation Closing 01:39:58
  • 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®.

ATAPU Credit

Aurora Training Advantage is offering continuing education points designed to recognize dedication to training and excellence in purchasing.

QPANJ Credit

Qualified Purchasing Agent - New Jersey

  • Bid 00:02:36, 00:02:44, 00:03:13, 00:04:36, 00:07:40, 00:17:12, 01:14:12
  • Commodity 00:14:10
  • Contract 00:15:07, 00:33:25, 00:46:12, 01:14:03
  • Contractor 00:33:20, 00:35:56, 00:37:05, 00:40:49
  • Cost 00:04:19, 00:04:20, 00:08:49, 00:08:51, 00:09:00, 01:23:05
  • Procurement 00:09:02, 00:12:19, 00:13:10, 00:13:17, 00:15:06, 00:45:16, 00:55:23
  • Request For Information (RFI) 00:05:43, 00:05:46, 00:06:27, 00:11:17
  • Request for Proposal (RFP) 00:02:25, 00:02:43, 00:04:13, 00:49:19, 00:52:33, 01:08:41, 01:13:58, 01:16:24, 01:22:36, 01:30:13
  • Scope Of Work (SOW) 00:42:06
  • Scoring Matrix 00:08:57, 00:52:23, 01:19:22, 01:26:39
  • Subcontractor 00:40:43, 00:41:20, 00:44:01
  • Vendor 00:02:03, 00:02:07, 00:02:55, 00:09:15, 00:13:23, 00:14:53, 00:33:33, 00:45:57, 00:53:37, 01:05:09, 01:12:09, 01:21:01, 01:32:35
  • Vendor Database 00:13:12, 00:15:44,  00:15:58
  • Z-Score 01:31:57

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.

Commodity: A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type.

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

Contractor: A person or company that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or do a job.

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.

Scope of Work (SOW): The Scope of Work (SOW) is the area in an agreement where the work to be performed is described. The SOW should contain any milestones, reports, deliverables, and end products that are expected to be provided by the performing party. The SOW should also contain a time line for all deliverables.

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

Subcontractor: The process by which these various specialist trades are brought into a project.

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.

Vendor Database: The Vendor database stores information about your vendors. Because the system is fully integrated, the information you enter in the Vendor database is automatically supplied to other parts of the system.

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 2 survey responses. Attendees have given an average rating of 4.5 stars out of a possible 5, reflecting the quality and value of the content presented.

Average rating

4.5 / 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?
4.5 Stars
Overall, how satisfied were you with this event?
4.5 Stars
Speaker Performance
Overall, how satisfied were you with this presenter?
4.0 Stars
How closely did the presenter follow the schedule?
4.5 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.

Rachael K.
February 24, 2026
4.0 / 5
Webinar Rating:
4.3 Stars
Speaker Rating:
3.5 Stars
Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns?
Presenter was very monotone and his microphone was cutting out a lot.
Stephanie P.
February 24, 2026
5.0 / 5
Webinar Rating:
5.0 Stars
Speaker Rating:
5.0 Stars
Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns?
no comment

Frequently Asked Questions

A well-maintained vendor database is the foundation of an efficient procurement operation. It provides immediate access to qualified, vetted vendors when a need arises, reducing the time and effort required to identify potential suppliers for each new procurement. Building an effective vendor database begins with gathering information from multiple sources: issuing Notices of Intent to Bid or Requests for Information to attract vendors, outreach to industry associations and chambers of commerce, referrals from peer organizations, and responses to prior procurements. Key information to capture for each vendor includes contact details, business certifications (small business, minority-owned, woman-owned, veteran-owned), relevant experience and capabilities, geographic service areas, financial stability information, and any prior procurement history with your organization. The database should be organized by commodity or service category to enable fast retrieval when a new need arises. Regular maintenance is essential: update contact information, add new vendors, remove vendors who are no longer in business or who have performed poorly, and refresh capability information periodically. A robust vendor database also supports supplier diversity initiatives by making diverse vendor options visible and accessible to procurement staff at the beginning of each procurement process.
Vendor responsibility refers to the assessment of whether a prospective vendor is capable of performing a contract successfully — possessing the necessary experience, financial stability, integrity, and resources to fulfill the obligations they are bidding on. Awarding a contract to a vendor who lacks the capacity, financial strength, or integrity to perform creates serious risks: project failures, cost overruns, service disruptions, legal disputes, and reputational harm to the procuring organization. A comprehensive vendor responsibility review considers several dimensions: relevant experience and references from comparable past contracts, financial stability assessed through financial statements or tools like the Altman Z-Score for bankruptcy prediction, legal and regulatory compliance history (tax compliance, OSHA violations, debarment status), and integrity factors such as criminal history or prior contract default. For public sector organizations, vendor responsibility is often a legal requirement before contract award. Implementing a structured responsibility review process — using standardized questionnaires, reference checks, and financial screening tools — reduces procurement risk and provides documented rationale for vendor selection or rejection decisions that can withstand legal scrutiny or audit review.
An effective RFP document is clearly structured, comprehensive, and provides vendors with everything they need to submit a competitive, responsive proposal. Key components include a project overview and organizational background that contextualizes the need, a detailed scope of work specifying deliverables, timelines, and performance standards, submission requirements covering format, required sections, page limits, and deadlines, and evaluation criteria explaining how proposals will be scored — distinguishing mandatory pass/fail requirements from weighted technical criteria. The cost evaluation section should describe how pricing will be evaluated relative to technical merit, including the cost formula used. A vendor questions and answers section ensures all bidders receive the same information, maintaining fairness and reducing ambiguity. A realistic procurement timeline covering RFP issuance, questions due date, answers released, proposal due date, evaluation period, and anticipated award date helps vendors plan their response effort. Sample contract terms or standard clauses included in the RFP signal to vendors what they are agreeing to and reduce post-award negotiation delays. The clearer and more complete the RFP, the better the quality of proposals received — and the more defensible the eventual award decision will be to internal stakeholders, auditors, or unsuccessful bidders.
Managing a vendor proposal evaluation committee effectively is essential to producing a fair, defensible, and well-reasoned procurement decision. Before evaluators begin reviewing proposals, they should receive clear written instructions covering the evaluation criteria and their assigned weights, the scoring scale and what each rating level means, the process for scoring mandatory pass/fail sections before technical scoring begins, rules around confidentiality and independent scoring, the timeline and logistics for the evaluation period, and the process for submitting and reconciling scores. Evaluators should score proposals independently before any group discussion to prevent anchoring — the tendency for early opinions to disproportionately influence the group. After independent scoring, a facilitated consensus meeting identifies significant scoring discrepancies and allows evaluators to discuss the basis for their ratings. The facilitator's role is to ensure fair discussion — not to direct evaluators toward a preferred outcome. All scoring sheets should be retained as part of the procurement record. For evaluators unfamiliar with the subject matter, providing a brief orientation on the technical requirements before evaluation begins improves scoring quality. Documenting the evaluation process and rationale at each step creates an audit trail that protects the organization from procurement protests or legal challenges.
Procurement pitfalls can derail even well-intentioned RFP processes, resulting in poor vendor selection, contract disputes, audit findings, or legal challenges. Writing requirements that are too narrow or too tailored to a specific vendor's capabilities is one of the most serious risks — it limits competition, may violate procurement integrity rules, and can result in contract protests. Failing to clearly define evaluation criteria upfront leaves room for post-hoc rationalization of a preferred outcome. Inadequate vendor outreach limits the quality of the vendor pool and may cause an organization to miss superior options. Moving too quickly through the evaluation process under deadline pressure increases the risk of errors and reduces the quality of the award decision. Weak or absent conflict of interest management — where evaluators have financial or personal relationships with bidding vendors — creates legal exposure and damages credibility. Post-award, failing to clearly document the rationale for the award creates vulnerability to protests by unsuccessful bidders. Organizations avoid these pitfalls by investing in procurement training, using standardized templates and checklists, building adequate timelines, involving legal counsel in RFP development for high-value contracts, and maintaining rigorous documentation throughout the entire process from solicitation through award and contract execution.