What Are the Key Differences in the Evaluation Criteria for an Rfs Compared to a Traditional Rfp?

Concept

The distinction between a Request for Solution (RFS) and a Request for Proposal (RFP) originates in a fundamental choice about the nature of the problem being addressed. An organization initiating an RFP operates from a position of knowing what it needs and, to a large extent, how it should be delivered. The process is engineered to validate a supplier’s ability to meet predefined specifications within a competitive cost structure.

In this context, the evaluation criteria are a forensic exercise in compliance and capability verification. The RFP is a tool for procuring a known quantity.

Conversely, the RFS is deployed when the business need is clear but the path to satisfying it is not. It is an acknowledgment of an outcome-oriented goal where the organization seeks external expertise to define the solution itself. Here, the procurement process shifts from a transactional evaluation to a strategic dialogue.

The core purpose is not to compare bids against a rigid template but to source innovation and co-create a solution. This philosophical divergence dictates every subsequent step, most critically the framework used to evaluate submissions.

The choice between an RFP and an RFS is a choice between procuring a detailed specification versus procuring a desired business outcome.

An RFP process is inherently prescriptive. The issuing entity has invested significant internal resources in defining the technical, operational, and commercial requirements. The resulting document is a detailed blueprint. A vendor’s response is thus judged on its fidelity to this blueprint.

The evaluation is a structured, often quantitative, process of checking boxes, comparing features, and weighing costs. The central question is, “Can this vendor deliver what we have specified at the right price?”

An RFS, in contrast, is descriptive. It describes a problem, a strategic objective, or an unmet business need. It invites potential partners to diagnose the situation and propose a novel approach. The evaluation, therefore, cannot be a simple checklist.

It becomes a qualitative assessment of a vendor’s understanding, creativity, strategic alignment, and potential for partnership. The central question transforms into, “Does this vendor truly understand our problem, and is their proposed solution the most effective way to achieve our desired future state?” This difference in the core question is the genesis of the profound divergence in their evaluation criteria.

Strategy

Aligning the procurement methodology with the strategic intent is the critical function of the solicitation process. The decision to use an RFP or an RFS is a direct reflection of an organization’s internal knowledge, its appetite for innovation, and the maturity of the market for the required goods or services. Each path establishes a different kind of relationship with suppliers and allocates risk differently, which must be mirrored in the evaluation strategy.

The RFP a Framework for Compliance and Cost

The strategic foundation of an RFP is risk mitigation through specification. By defining the requirements in granular detail, the organization seeks to minimize ambiguity and ensure that all proposals are comparable on an “apples-to-apples” basis. This makes the evaluation process more objective and defensible. The strategy is to commoditize the supply side as much as possible to drive competition on price and execution certainty.

Key Strategic Pillars of an RFP Evaluation

• Requirement Adherence The primary test is whether the vendor’s proposal meets every mandatory requirement laid out in the RFP. Deviations are often grounds for immediate disqualification.
• Price Competitiveness With the solution largely defined, price becomes a dominant factor. The evaluation is designed to identify the lowest cost provider that meets the minimum technical threshold.
• Proven Performance The focus is on past performance and established experience. The organization wants to see evidence that the vendor has delivered a similar solution successfully before.

The RFS a Vehicle for Innovation and Partnership

The RFS operates on a completely different strategic plane. It is used when the problem is complex, the solution is not obvious, or when the organization wants to leverage the specialized expertise of the market to discover new possibilities. The strategy is not to minimize supplier variance but to maximize it, encouraging a wide range of creative and potentially disruptive solutions. This approach accepts a higher degree of initial ambiguity in exchange for a higher potential for value creation.

An RFP evaluation strategy seeks to find the best supplier for a pre-defined task; an RFS evaluation strategy seeks to find the best partner to help define and solve a complex problem.

Key Strategic Pillars of an RFS Evaluation

• Problem Comprehension The first and most critical hurdle is assessing how well the vendor understands the stated business problem, its nuances, and its strategic context.
• Solution Ingenuity The core of the evaluation is the quality, creativity, and feasibility of the proposed solution. It assesses the “how” when the organization has only provided the “what” and “why.”
• Partnership Potential Since an RFS often leads to a more collaborative and long-term relationship, the evaluation must consider cultural fit, shared vision, and the vendor’s ability to work as a strategic partner.

The following table illustrates the strategic alignment of each procurement type.

Execution

The execution of an evaluation process for an RFP versus an RFS requires fundamentally different operational mindsets, tools, and team compositions. The mechanics of scoring and selection must be purpose-built to serve the distinct strategic goals of either compliance or innovation. An evaluation team that excels at the rigorous, checklist-driven analysis of an RFP may be ill-equipped for the qualitative and strategic deliberations required for an RFS.

Executing the RFP Evaluation a Process of Verification

The RFP evaluation is a highly structured, often multi-stage process designed for objectivity and auditability. The execution is methodical and focuses on eliminating proposals that fail to meet specific, non-negotiable criteria before comparing the remaining contenders on a weighted scoring model.

1. Mandatory Compliance Screening The first step is a simple pass/fail gate. The evaluation team checks each proposal against a list of mandatory requirements (e.g. required certifications, financial stability thresholds, specific technical features). Any proposal that fails to meet all mandatory items is removed from consideration.
2. Detailed Technical Scoring Proposals that pass the initial screening are then scored against a detailed list of technical and functional requirements. Each requirement is typically assigned a point value, and proposals are scored based on the degree to which they meet or exceed the specification.
3. Commercial Evaluation The pricing component is then analyzed. This is often done after the technical scoring to prevent cost from unduly influencing the technical assessment. A formula is typically used to normalize pricing and assign a score.
4. Final Weighted Score Calculation The technical, commercial, and other scores (e.g. vendor experience) are combined based on a predetermined weighting system to arrive at a final score for each vendor.

Executing the RFS Evaluation a Process of Discovery

The RFS evaluation cannot be executed with a simple scoresheet. It is a more subjective, collaborative, and iterative process that resembles a venture capital funding decision more than a traditional procurement exercise. The goal is to find the best potential partner, not just the best proposal.

The process often involves multiple rounds of interaction, including presentations, workshops, and proof-of-concept demonstrations. The evaluation team must be composed of senior stakeholders with the strategic vision to recognize a promising solution and the authority to champion it.

Evaluating an RFP is about confirming capabilities against a known standard, while evaluating an RFS is about discovering potential and building confidence in a future partner.

The following table provides a granular comparison of the evaluation criteria and their typical weighting in an RFP versus an RFS, demonstrating the operational divergence in their execution.

Reflection

From Procurement to Strategic Sourcing

The decision to issue an RFS or an RFP is more than a process choice; it is a declaration of an organization’s self-awareness. It reflects a deep understanding of not only the problem at hand but also the internal capacity to solve it. An organization that defaults to RFPs for every scenario may be limiting its potential for breakthrough innovation, inadvertently signaling to the market that it values compliance over creativity. Conversely, an organization that uses an RFS for a simple, commoditized need may be wasting resources and introducing unnecessary complexity.

Mastering the strategic application of these distinct procurement instruments is a hallmark of a mature organization. It demonstrates a capacity to look beyond the immediate transaction and architect a sourcing process that is fit for purpose. The evaluation criteria are the final, critical expression of this strategy. They are the mechanism by which an organization’s intent is translated into a decision, shaping not just the outcome of a single project but the nature of its supplier relationships and its long-term competitive posture.