# What Are the Most Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing a Stakeholder-Driven Approach to Rfp Evaluation? ▴ Question

**Published:** 2025-08-08
**Categories:** Question

---

![Stacked precision-engineered circular components, varying in size and color, rest on a cylindrical base. This modular assembly symbolizes a robust Crypto Derivatives OS architecture, enabling high-fidelity execution for institutional RFQ protocols](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-rfq-protocol-architecture-optimized-for-high-fidelity-execution.jpg)

![Geometric panels, light and dark, interlocked by a luminous diagonal, depict an institutional RFQ protocol for digital asset derivatives. Central nodes symbolize liquidity aggregation and price discovery within a Principal's execution management system, enabling high-fidelity execution and atomic settlement in market microstructure](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-engine-1.jpg)

## Concept

An organization’s method for conducting a Request for Proposal (RFP) evaluation is a direct reflection of its internal operating system. Viewing this process as a sequence of administrative tasks is a fundamental misreading of its purpose. It is a complex, data-intensive decision engine, and its architecture determines the quality of critical investment outcomes. When this engine is driven by multiple stakeholders, its internal mechanics become substantially more intricate.

The process transforms into a distributed system problem, where each stakeholder represents a processing node with unique heuristics, priorities, and potential biases. The most prevalent failures in these systems are frequently misdiagnosed as interpersonal friction or poor project management. They are, in fact, architectural defects in the [evaluation framework](https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-framework/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) itself.

The core function of a [stakeholder-driven evaluation](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-best-strategies-for-managing-stakeholder-input-during-the-rfp-evaluation-process/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) is to synthesize diverse, often conflicting, signals into a coherent, optimal decision. The system must ingest qualitative and quantitative data from internal experts, end-users, financial controllers, and technical authorities. It then must process this information through a predefined logic ▴ the evaluation criteria and weighting ▴ to produce a final output ▴ a vendor selection that represents the highest potential value to the organization as a whole. The pitfalls that disrupt this process are therefore systemic.

They are bugs in the code, not features of the landscape. These vulnerabilities include signal distortion, where one stakeholder’s priorities disproportionately influence the outcome; data loss, where valuable insights are discarded due to an inadequate collection framework; and processing errors, where flawed scoring logic produces a distorted view of the competitive landscape.

![An abstract system depicts an institutional-grade digital asset derivatives platform. Interwoven metallic conduits symbolize low-latency RFQ execution pathways, facilitating efficient block trade routing](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-rfq-execution-engine.jpg)

## The Illusion of Subjectivity

A common architectural flaw is the failure to properly structure the collection and analysis of what is deemed subjective input. Stakeholder expertise, while qualitative, is data. It is a high-value stream of experiential information. An [evaluation system](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-primary-technological-hurdles-to-implementing-an-ai-powered-rfp-evaluation-system/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) that treats this input as an amorphous cloud of opinion, to be informally gathered and discussed, is destined for failure.

This approach introduces significant latency and noise into the decision-making process. The system lacks a protocol for capturing these insights in a structured format, making them impossible to weigh, compare, or integrate into a quantitative framework in a repeatable manner. Consequently, the loudest voice or the most politically influential node in the network can cause a cascading failure, overriding data-backed insights from other critical stakeholders. The objective is to design a system that translates expert judgment into structured data points, thereby honoring the expertise while containing the bias.

![Precision system for institutional digital asset derivatives. Translucent elements denote multi-leg spread structures and RFQ protocols](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-execution-infrastructure-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-request-for-quote-protocol-optimization.jpg)

## Defining the Operational Mandate

Every RFP process is initiated to fulfill a specific operational or strategic mandate. A failure to encode this mandate into the DNA of the evaluation architecture is the primary source of drift and misalignment. Vague project charters citing goals like “improving productivity” or “modernizing technology” provide an insufficient foundation for a robust evaluation system. Such statements are the equivalent of defining a system’s target state with a feeling rather than a set of precise, measurable parameters.

A properly architected evaluation system begins with the rigorous quantification of the desired end state. This involves translating broad business objectives into a granular set of key performance indicators, technical specifications, and operational metrics. This detailed blueprint serves as the central logic against which all stakeholder input and vendor proposals are calibrated. Without it, the [evaluation process](https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-process/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) becomes a decentralized, uncoordinated search, with each stakeholder navigating by their own local map, leading to a suboptimal global outcome.

![A Principal's RFQ engine core unit, featuring distinct algorithmic matching probes for high-fidelity execution and liquidity aggregation. This price discovery mechanism leverages private quotation pathways, optimizing crypto derivatives OS operations for atomic settlement within its systemic architecture](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/principals-rfq-engine-driving-optimal-digital-asset-derivatives.jpg)

![A sophisticated metallic instrument, a precision gauge, indicates a calibrated reading, essential for RFQ protocol execution. Its intricate scales symbolize price discovery and high-fidelity execution for institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-platform.jpg)

## Strategy

Architecting a resilient stakeholder-driven [RFP evaluation](https://prime.greeks.live/area/rfp-evaluation/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) system requires a deliberate strategy that moves beyond simple checklists and process maps. It demands the implementation of a governing framework that manages information flow, calibrates influence, and ensures every component of the process serves the primary operational mandate. This framework is the strategic layer of the evaluation operating system, defining the rules of engagement for all participants and ensuring the integrity of the final output. The core strategic challenge is one of signal processing ▴ how to amplify the valuable, objective insights from each stakeholder while filtering out the noise of individual bias, departmental agendas, and transient pressures.

> A successful strategy treats stakeholder alignment not as a goal to be achieved through persuasion, but as a systemic property to be engineered through intelligent framework design.

Developing this strategy involves a conscious design choice between several models of decision-making and [stakeholder management](https://prime.greeks.live/area/stakeholder-management/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite). Each model presents a different approach to balancing expert input with central oversight and quantitative rigor. The selection of a particular strategic model is a high-stakes decision that predetermines the dynamics of the evaluation, the nature of the debates, and the defensibility of the final choice. The organization must select the architecture that best aligns with its culture, the complexity of the procurement, and the level of risk involved.

![A sleek, metallic algorithmic trading component with a central circular mechanism rests on angular, multi-colored reflective surfaces, symbolizing sophisticated RFQ protocols, aggregated liquidity, and high-fidelity execution within institutional digital asset derivatives market microstructure. This represents the intelligence layer of a Prime RFQ for optimal price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-system-architecture-for-optimal-price-discovery-and-high-fidelity-execution.jpg)

## Frameworks for Systemic Stakeholder Integration

The integration of stakeholder input is not a monolithic activity. Different strategic frameworks can be deployed to structure this engagement. A common, yet often flawed, approach is the informal consultative model, where the procurement team engages stakeholders ad-hoc. This system is highly susceptible to influence from the most accessible or vocal participants.

A more robust strategy involves formalizing these interactions within a structured framework. Two such contrasting frameworks are the Centralized Command model and the Distributed Consensus model.

The **Centralized Command** model vests final decision-making authority in a small, core committee, often composed of project leads and budget holders. This group receives and weighs input from a wider pool of stakeholders, but retains exclusive control over the final scoring and selection. This architecture prioritizes speed and decisiveness. Its primary risk is the potential for insulating decision-makers from critical operational insights from frontline experts, leading to a technically sound but operationally flawed choice.

The **Distributed Consensus** model, conversely, seeks broad-based agreement among all identified stakeholders. Decisions, particularly at key gates, require a formal consensus. This model excels at fostering buy-in and leveraging collective expertise. Its inherent vulnerability is process paralysis; a single dissenting node can halt progress, and the final decision may regress to a lowest-common-denominator compromise that satisfies everyone partially but no one fully.

Here, one can begin to see the immense difficulty in designing a system that balances these competing pressures. The quantification of qualitative feedback presents a significant analytical challenge. How does a system assign a numerical value to a senior engineer’s deep-seated concerns about a solution’s scalability, especially when that vendor scores highly on all predefined quantitative metrics? Simply asking the engineer to assign a score of 1-to-5 is a crude abstraction.

A superior system would employ a more sophisticated protocol, perhaps requiring the engineer to articulate the specific failure scenarios they envision and to estimate the potential operational impact. This transforms a subjective feeling into a structured risk assessment, a piece of data the system can then process logically.

![Sleek dark metallic platform, glossy spherical intelligence layer, precise perforations, above curved illuminated element. This symbolizes an institutional RFQ protocol for digital asset derivatives, enabling high-fidelity execution, advanced market microstructure, Prime RFQ powered price discovery, and deep liquidity pool access](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-high-fidelity-execution-1.jpg)

## Comparative Analysis of Engagement Models

The choice of an engagement model has profound implications for the entire evaluation lifecycle. The table below outlines the operational characteristics of three distinct strategic frameworks, providing a basis for selecting the appropriate architecture for a given procurement context.

| Framework | Decision Locus | Primary Advantage | Primary Vulnerability | Optimal Use Case |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Centralized Command | Core Committee / Project Lead | Speed, Decisiveness, Clear Accountability | Information Siloing, Low Stakeholder Buy-in | Time-critical procurements; Commodity purchases with clear specifications |
| Weighted Council | Blended; Scores aggregated based on pre-defined stakeholder weights | Balances Expertise with Authority, Data-Driven | Complexity in weighting design; Potential for political maneuvering over weights | Complex enterprise systems; Procurements with diverse end-user groups |
| Distributed Consensus | All identified stakeholders | Maximum Buy-in, Thorough Vetting | Process Gridlock, Regression to Compromise | High-impact cultural or organizational change initiatives |

![Abstract intersecting geometric forms, deep blue and light beige, represent advanced RFQ protocols for institutional digital asset derivatives. These forms signify multi-leg execution strategies, principal liquidity aggregation, and high-fidelity algorithmic pricing against a textured global market sphere, reflecting robust market microstructure and intelligence layer](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-multi-leg-execution-algorithmic-pricing-global-liquidity-principal-trading-systemic-integration-high-fidelity-execution.jpg)

## The Criticality of Scoring Architecture

The scoring and weighting mechanism is the central processing unit of the evaluation engine. Its design is a critical strategic activity. A frequent pitfall is the disproportionate weighting of price. While financial considerations are paramount, assigning price a weight of 40% or more effectively transforms the process from a value-based assessment into a simple cost competition.

This can systematically favor immature or incomplete solutions that offer a low initial price but generate significant downstream integration costs and operational debt. A sound strategy establishes price as a significant, but not dominant, factor, typically in the 20-30% range. The remaining weight is then intelligently distributed across technical capabilities, operational fit, [vendor viability](https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite), and other criteria directly derived from the project’s core mandate. The use of unclear evaluation scales, such as a three-point system, further degrades the system’s fidelity by failing to capture meaningful distinctions between proposals. A five or ten-point scale provides the necessary granularity for a high-resolution analysis.

![A glowing green ring encircles a dark, reflective sphere, symbolizing a principal's intelligence layer for high-fidelity RFQ execution. It reflects intricate market microstructure, signifying precise algorithmic trading for institutional digital asset derivatives, optimizing price discovery and managing latent liquidity](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/core-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-system-hub.jpg)

![Intersecting transparent and opaque geometric planes, symbolizing the intricate market microstructure of institutional digital asset derivatives. Visualizes high-fidelity execution and price discovery via RFQ protocols, demonstrating multi-leg spread strategies and dark liquidity for capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-market-microstructure-architecture.jpg)

## Execution

The execution phase translates the selected strategic framework into a series of rigorous, repeatable operational protocols. This is where the architectural design meets the real-world pressures of deadlines, conflicting opinions, and incomplete information. A robust execution plan is characterized by its precision, transparency, and its capacity to manage the flow of the evaluation process with minimal distortion.

It operationalizes the strategy through a clear sequence of actions, gates, and deliverables. Failures at this stage are almost always attributable to a lack of procedural discipline and the absence of purpose-built tools to enforce that discipline.

> A well-designed evaluation process functions like a cleanroom, meticulously controlling inputs and processes to prevent contamination of the final result.

The operational playbook for a stakeholder-driven evaluation must be built on a foundation of clarity. Every participant must understand their role, the rules of the system, the inputs they are required to provide, and the format in which those inputs must be delivered. Ambiguity is the primary vector for bias and process decay. The following protocols provide a blueprint for executing a defensible, high-integrity evaluation.

![A sleek, futuristic object with a glowing line and intricate metallic core, symbolizing a Prime RFQ for institutional digital asset derivatives. It represents a sophisticated RFQ protocol engine enabling high-fidelity execution, liquidity aggregation, atomic settlement, and capital efficiency for multi-leg spreads](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/advanced-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-engine-for-optimal-liquidity-aggregation-and-atomic-settlement.jpg)

## The Operational Playbook a Phased Approach

A successful execution unfolds in distinct phases, each with its own set of objectives, tasks, and validation checks. This phased approach prevents the premature convergence on a solution and ensures that each layer of the analysis is completed before the next begins.

- 
**Phase 1 ▴ System Initialization and Stakeholder Mapping.** This initial phase is dedicated to building the foundational structure of the evaluation. It moves from the abstract to the concrete by defining the participants and their roles within the system.

<li>**Task 1.1 ▴ Formalize the Core Mandate.** Translate the high-level business case into a specific, measurable set of project objectives. This document becomes the constitution for the evaluation process.

- **Task 1.2 ▴ Conduct Stakeholder Analysis.** Identify every individual or group with a vested interest in the outcome. This goes beyond the obvious end-users to include IT security, finance, legal, and support teams.

- **Task 1.3 ▴ Execute Stakeholder Mapping.** For each stakeholder, define their role in the process (e.g. evaluator, consultant, approver) and their specific areas of expertise. A RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) chart is a useful tool, but a more granular mapping is often required.

- **Task 1.4 ▴ Design the Evaluation Scorecard.** Based on the core mandate, build the detailed scoring criteria. Each criterion must be clearly defined and linked back to a specific objective. Assign preliminary weights to each section, ensuring a balanced view that avoids the price-weighting pitfall.

</li>
- 
**Phase 2 ▴ Protocol Calibration and Training.** Before the RFP is released, all evaluators must be calibrated to ensure they are using the system in the same way. This is a non-negotiable step to ensure data consistency.

<li>**Task 2.1 ▴ Host a Kick-off and Training Session.** Walk every evaluator through the core mandate, the scorecard, the scoring scale (e.g. 1-10), and the definitions for each point on the scale. Provide clear examples of what constitutes a “3” versus a “7” for a given criterion.

- **Task 2.2 ▴ Establish Communication Protocols.** Define the official channels for communication. All vendor questions must be submitted through a central point of contact to ensure all participants receive the same information. Prohibit back-channel communications between vendors and individual stakeholders.

- **Task 2.3 ▴ Finalize Scorecard Weighting.** Secure final agreement on the weighting of each evaluation criterion from the designated approvers. This step must be completed before proposals are received to prevent weights from being changed to favor a preferred vendor.

</li>
- 
**Phase 3 ▴ Independent Evaluation.** This phase is designed to capture the unbiased, independent assessment of each evaluator. It is a period of focused, individual work, protected from the influence of group dynamics.

<li>**Task 3.1 ▴ Distribute Proposals for Individual Scoring.** Each evaluator scores their assigned sections of the proposals using the calibrated scorecard.

- **Task 3.2 ▴ Enforce Scoring Discipline.** Require evaluators to provide a written justification for every score they assign. A score without a rationale is an opinion; a score with a rationale is an analysis. This is critical for the consensus meeting.

- **Task 3.3 ▴ Consolidate Scores.** The project lead or procurement manager consolidates all individual scores into a master spreadsheet. This initial consolidation should highlight areas of significant variance between evaluators.

</li>
- 
**Phase 4 ▴ The Consensus Protocol.** The purpose of this phase is not to average scores, but to analyze the deltas. A significant variance in scores is a signal of a misunderstanding or a deep-seated disagreement that must be resolved.

<li>**Task 4.1 ▴ Conduct a Consensus Meeting.** Review the consolidated scores, focusing exclusively on criteria with high score variance.

- **Task 4.2 ▴ Mediate Score Discussion.** The evaluator with the highest score and the evaluator with the lowest score for a given item must present their rationale, referencing their written justifications. This is a data-driven discussion, not a debate of opinions.

- **Task 4.3 ▴ Allow Score Adjustments.** After the discussion, evaluators are given the opportunity to revise their scores based on the new information presented. This is not a requirement to agree, but an opportunity to refine their initial assessment.

- **Task 4.4 ▴ Finalize and Document Outcome.** The final consensus scores are recorded, along with a summary of the key discussion points and the final decision.

</li>

![Sleek metallic system component with intersecting translucent fins, symbolizing multi-leg spread execution for institutional grade digital asset derivatives. It enables high-fidelity execution and price discovery via RFQ protocols, optimizing market microstructure and gamma exposure for capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-trading-system-rfq-protocols.jpg)

## Quantitative Modeling and Data Analysis

The execution of a stakeholder-driven evaluation hinges on the quality of its data model. The tables below illustrate a simplified, yet powerful, quantitative framework for managing the process. This is the engine room of the evaluation, where stakeholder input is translated into a defensible, data-driven decision.

This is where the system’s architecture truly proves its worth. The process of designing the weighting scheme is a profound strategic exercise. For instance, a procurement for a core financial system might assign a higher weight to ‘System Security’ and ‘Vendor Viability’, reflecting the high-risk nature of the acquisition. A system for an internal marketing team might place a higher weight on ‘User Interface & Usability’.

The design of this table is a collaborative effort that forces stakeholders to have a difficult, necessary conversation about what truly matters before any vendors are even considered. This single, intensive, and often contentious exercise in building the weighted scorecard is perhaps the most valuable risk mitigation activity in the entire procurement lifecycle. It front-loads the alignment process, transforming vague preferences into a rigid, logical, and agreed-upon framework that governs the entire subsequent evaluation. It is the bedrock of a defensible and intelligent decision.

![A vertically stacked assembly of diverse metallic and polymer components, resembling a modular lens system, visually represents the layered architecture of institutional digital asset derivatives. Each distinct ring signifies a critical market microstructure element, from RFQ protocol layers to aggregated liquidity pools, ensuring high-fidelity execution and capital efficiency within a Prime RFQ framework](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-execution-stack.jpg)

## Table 1 ▴ Stakeholder Mapping and Influence Matrix

| Stakeholder | Department | Role (RACI) | Primary Evaluation Area | Weighting Influence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CFO | Finance | Accountable | Pricing & TCO, Vendor Viability | High |
| Lead Engineer | Technology | Responsible | Technical Architecture, Integration | High |
| Operations Manager | Operations | Consulted | Workflow Efficiency, Usability | Medium |
| Security Officer | IT Security | Responsible | Data Security, Compliance | High (Veto Power) |
| General Counsel | Legal | Informed | Contractual Terms, MSA | Low (Advisory) |

![A precisely stacked array of modular institutional-grade digital asset trading platforms, symbolizing sophisticated RFQ protocol execution. Each layer represents distinct liquidity pools and high-fidelity execution pathways, enabling price discovery for multi-leg spreads and atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-high-fidelity-execution-8.jpg)

## Table 2 ▴ Weighted Scorecard Consolidation

This table represents the final output of the quantitative analysis, consolidating the consensus scores and applying the agreed-upon weights to generate a final, ranked outcome.

| Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Vendor A Score (1-10) | Vendor A Weighted Score | Vendor B Score (1-10) | Vendor B Weighted Score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Technical Architecture | 25% | 9 | 2.25 | 7 | 1.75 |
| Usability & Workflow | 20% | 6 | 1.20 | 9 | 1.80 |
| Security & Compliance | 25% | 8 | 2.00 | 8 | 2.00 |
| Pricing & TCO | 20% | 7 | 1.40 | 9 | 1.80 |
| Vendor Viability & Support | 10% | 9 | 0.90 | 6 | 0.60 |
| Total | 100% | | 7.75 | | 7.95 |

![Sleek, domed institutional-grade interface with glowing green and blue indicators highlights active RFQ protocols and price discovery. This signifies high-fidelity execution within a Prime RFQ for digital asset derivatives, ensuring real-time liquidity and capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-prime-os-execution-interface.jpg)

## References

- Gregory, R. & Keeney, R. L. (1994). Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. _Management Science, 40_(8), 1035-1048.

- Sarkis, J. & Talluri, S. (2002). A model for strategic supplier selection. _Journal of supply chain management, 38_(1), 18-28.

- De Boer, L. Labro, E. & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. _European journal of purchasing & supply management, 7_(2), 75-89.

- Eskenazi, M. & Galliers, R. D. (2008). Towards a multi-stakeholder, multi-criteria approach to information systems evaluation. In _Information Systems Evaluation Management_ (pp. 1-15). IGI Global.

- Freeman, R. E. (2010). _Strategic management ▴ A stakeholder approach_. Cambridge university press.

- Keeney, R. L. (1996). _Value-focused thinking ▴ A path to creative decisionmaking_. Harvard University Press.

- Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. _International journal of services sciences, 1_(1), 83-98.

- Bonfire. (2022). _RFP Evaluation Guide ▴ 4 Mistakes You Might be Making in Your RFP Process_. Euna Solutions.

![A sleek, multi-component system, predominantly dark blue, features a cylindrical sensor with a central lens. This precision-engineered module embodies an intelligence layer for real-time market microstructure observation, facilitating high-fidelity execution via RFQ protocol](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-rfq-protocol-intelligence-layer-for-digital-asset-derivatives-microstructure.jpg)

## Reflection

An organization’s capacity to execute high-stakes procurement decisions is a direct indicator of its operational maturity. The frameworks and protocols detailed here are components of a larger system ▴ an organization’s intelligence architecture for allocating capital and managing risk. Viewing the stakeholder-driven evaluation process through this systemic lens reveals its true nature.

It is not an administrative burden to be minimized; it is a strategic capability to be honed. The integrity of this process has a cascading effect on the entire enterprise, influencing everything from technological capabilities to competitive posture.

The ultimate objective extends beyond selecting a single vendor in a single procurement. It is about building a resilient, adaptable decision-making framework that consistently yields optimal outcomes under varying conditions. This requires a shift in perspective, from managing a project to engineering a system. How is your organization’s evaluation system currently architected?

Where are its points of friction, its potential single points of failure? The continuous refinement of this internal system is a perpetual process, and it represents one of the most potent, yet often overlooked, levers for creating a lasting institutional advantage.

![A crystalline sphere, representing aggregated price discovery and implied volatility, rests precisely on a secure execution rail. This symbolizes a Principal's high-fidelity execution within a sophisticated digital asset derivatives framework, connecting a prime brokerage gateway to a robust liquidity pipeline, ensuring atomic settlement and minimal slippage for institutional block trades](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-execution-platform-optimizing-liquidity-and-risk-management-through-advanced-protocols.jpg)

## Glossary

<a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-framework/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract depiction of an advanced institutional trading system, featuring a prominent sensor for real-time price discovery and an intelligence layer. Visible circuitry signifies algorithmic trading capabilities, low-latency execution, and robust FIX protocol integration for digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-high-fidelity-rfq-protocols.jpg)

## Evaluation Framework

Meaning ▴ An Evaluation Framework constitutes a structured, analytical methodology designed for the systematic assessment of performance, efficiency, and risk across complex operational domains within institutional digital asset derivatives. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-best-strategies-for-managing-stakeholder-input-during-the-rfp-evaluation-process/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Stacked, modular components represent a sophisticated Prime RFQ for institutional digital asset derivatives. Each layer signifies distinct liquidity pools or execution venues, with transparent covers revealing intricate market microstructure and algorithmic trading logic, facilitating high-fidelity execution and price discovery within a private quotation environment](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-framework.jpg)

## Stakeholder-Driven Evaluation

A systematic framework for integrating stakeholder input transforms RFP evaluation from a negotiation into a data-driven decision system. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-primary-technological-hurdles-to-implementing-an-ai-powered-rfp-evaluation-system/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Intersecting metallic components symbolize an institutional RFQ Protocol framework. This system enables High-Fidelity Execution and Atomic Settlement for Digital Asset Derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-system-specialists.jpg)

## Evaluation System

An AI RFP system's primary hurdles are codifying expert judgment and ensuring model transparency within a secure data architecture. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-process/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A central glowing core within metallic structures symbolizes an Institutional Grade RFQ engine. This Intelligence Layer enables optimal Price Discovery and High-Fidelity Execution for Digital Asset Derivatives, streamlining Block Trade and Multi-Leg Spread Atomic Settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-engine-microstructure-core.jpg)

## Evaluation Process

Meaning ▴ The Evaluation Process constitutes a systematic, data-driven methodology for assessing performance, risk exposure, and operational compliance within a financial system, particularly concerning institutional digital asset derivatives. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/rfp-evaluation/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![An Execution Management System module, with intelligence layer, integrates with a liquidity pool hub and RFQ protocol component. This signifies atomic settlement and high-fidelity execution within an institutional grade Prime RFQ, ensuring capital efficiency for digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/prime-os-orchestrating-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-for-optimal-execution.jpg)

## Rfp Evaluation

Meaning ▴ RFP Evaluation denotes the structured, systematic process undertaken by an institutional entity to assess and score vendor proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposal, specifically for technology and services pertaining to institutional digital asset derivatives. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/stakeholder-management/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Stacked, distinct components, subtly tilted, symbolize the multi-tiered institutional digital asset derivatives architecture. Layers represent RFQ protocols, private quotation aggregation, core liquidity pools, and atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/layered-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-optimizing-principal-execution-management-systems-for-best-execution.jpg)

## Stakeholder Management

Meaning ▴ Stakeholder Management, within the context of institutional digital asset derivatives, constitutes the systematic identification, analysis, and strategic engagement with all entities, both internal and external, whose interests or actions materially impact the design, deployment, and operational integrity of trading systems and market participation. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Geometric shapes symbolize an institutional digital asset derivatives trading ecosystem. A pyramid denotes foundational quantitative analysis and the Principal's operational framework](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

## Vendor Viability

Meaning ▴ Vendor Viability defines the comprehensive assessment of a technology provider's enduring capacity to deliver and sustain critical services for institutional operations, particularly within the demanding context of institutional digital asset derivatives. </a>

**Tags:** [Procurement Strategy](https://options.greeks.live/area/procurement-strategy/), [RFP Scoring Model](https://options.greeks.live/area/rfp-scoring-model/), [Decision Architecture](https://options.greeks.live/area/decision-architecture/), [RFP Evaluation](https://options.greeks.live/area/rfp-evaluation/), [Stakeholder Management](https://options.greeks.live/area/stakeholder-management/), [Evaluation Process](https://options.greeks.live/area/evaluation-process/)	

## Discover More

- 
### [What Are the Most Effective Methods for Building Consensus among RFP Evaluators to Avoid Delays?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-effective-methods-for-building-consensus-among-rfp-evaluators-to-avoid-delays/)
![A multi-layered electronic system, centered on a precise circular module, visually embodies an institutional-grade Crypto Derivatives OS. It represents the intricate market microstructure enabling high-fidelity execution via RFQ protocols for digital asset derivatives, driven by an intelligence layer facilitating algorithmic trading and optimal price discovery.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-engine-facilitating-high-fidelity-execution-and-optimal-price-discovery.jpg)

A structured evaluation framework with pre-defined criteria and facilitated consensus sessions is the most effective method to ensure timely, defensible RFP decisions.

- 
### [How Often Should an Organization Review and Update Its Standard RFP Evaluation Criteria?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-often-should-an-organization-review-and-update-its-standard-rfp-evaluation-criteria/)
![An intricate, transparent cylindrical system depicts a sophisticated RFQ protocol for digital asset derivatives. Internal glowing elements signify high-fidelity execution and algorithmic trading. A central angular structure represents atomic settlement and multi-leg spread capabilities, ensuring best execution within institutional trading.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-protocol-architecture.jpg)

An organization's standard RFP evaluation criteria should be reviewed on a cyclical basis, with the frequency determined by the strategic importance and risk profile of the procurement, as well as by key internal and external triggers.

- 
### [How Can We Quantify Qualitative Criteria in an Rfp Evaluation?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-can-we-quantify-qualitative-criteria-in-an-rfp-evaluation/)
![A central teal column embodies Prime RFQ infrastructure for institutional digital asset derivatives. Angled, concentric discs symbolize dynamic market microstructure and volatility surface data, facilitating RFQ protocols and price discovery. Small fasteners denote precise atomic settlement and high-fidelity execution.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-alpha-generation-execution.jpg)

Quantifying qualitative RFP criteria involves designing a weighted scoring architecture that translates subjective attributes into objective, defensible data points.

- 
### [How Can an Organization Ensure Objectivity and Reduce Bias in the RFP Evaluation Process?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-can-an-organization-ensure-objectivity-and-reduce-bias-in-the-rfp-evaluation-process/)
![The abstract composition features a central, multi-layered blue structure representing a sophisticated institutional digital asset derivatives platform, flanked by two distinct liquidity pools. Intersecting blades symbolize high-fidelity execution pathways and algorithmic trading strategies, facilitating private quotation and block trade settlement within a market microstructure optimized for price discovery and capital efficiency.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-high-fidelity-execution-1.jpg)

An organization ensures RFP objectivity by architecting a structured evaluation system with pre-defined, weighted criteria and a diverse, trained committee.

- 
### [How Can Sensitivity Analysis Be Used to Validate Rfp Weighting Models?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-can-sensitivity-analysis-be-used-to-validate-rfp-weighting-models/)
![Polished metallic pipes intersect via robust fasteners, set against a dark background. This symbolizes intricate Market Microstructure, RFQ Protocols, and Multi-Leg Spread execution. It highlights High-Fidelity Execution, Atomic Settlement, and Capital Efficiency within a Principal's Operational Framework for Digital Asset Derivatives.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-engineered-metallic-nodes-illustrating-rfq-protocols-for-multi-leg-digital-asset-derivatives-institutional-execution.jpg)

Sensitivity analysis validates RFP weighting models by testing if the winning choice is robust or an accident of subjective inputs.

- 
### [What Are the Most Common Bottlenecks in an Rfp Evaluation Process?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-bottlenecks-in-an-rfp-evaluation-process/)
![A dark, reflective surface showcases a metallic bar, symbolizing market microstructure and RFQ protocol precision for block trade execution. A clear sphere, representing atomic settlement or implied volatility, rests upon it, set against a teal liquidity pool. This depicts institutional-grade digital asset derivatives trading with high-fidelity execution and prime brokerage oversight.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-high-fidelity-execution-4.jpg)

The most common bottlenecks in an RFP evaluation process stem from a lack of clear requirements, poor communication, and manual processes.

- 
### [What Are the Best Practices for Evaluating Rfp Responses in a Hybrid Procurement Model?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-best-practices-for-evaluating-rfp-responses-in-a-hybrid-procurement-model/)
![A dark blue sphere and teal-hued circular elements on a segmented surface, bisected by a diagonal line. This visualizes institutional block trade aggregation, algorithmic price discovery, and high-fidelity execution within a Principal's Prime RFQ, optimizing capital efficiency and mitigating counterparty risk for digital asset derivatives and multi-leg spreads.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/market-microstructure-driven-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq.jpg)

A robust RFP evaluation in a hybrid model is a system for modeling a vendor's long-term integration and value contribution.

- 
### [In What Scenarios Would a Non-Voting Facilitator Be Most Critical to a Successful Rfp Outcome?](https://options.greeks.live/question/in-what-scenarios-would-a-non-voting-facilitator-be-most-critical-to-a-successful-rfp-outcome/)
![Abstract geometric design illustrating a central RFQ aggregation hub for institutional digital asset derivatives. Radiating lines symbolize high-fidelity execution via smart order routing across dark pools. Modular elements represent atomic settlement and capital efficiency within a Principal's operational framework.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-high-fidelity-execution-architecture.jpg)

A non-voting facilitator is a system governor, ensuring procedural integrity in complex RFPs to produce a defensible, high-quality outcome.

- 
### [What Are the Primary Risks an Organization Faces When Issuing an Rfp without Predefined Evaluation Criteria?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-primary-risks-an-organization-faces-when-issuing-an-rfp-without-predefined-evaluation-criteria/)
![Brushed metallic and colored modular components represent an institutional-grade Prime RFQ facilitating RFQ protocols for digital asset derivatives. The precise engineering signifies high-fidelity execution, atomic settlement, and capital efficiency within a sophisticated market microstructure for multi-leg spread trading.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-grade-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-high-fidelity-execution-system.jpg)

An RFP without defined criteria invites subjective bias, misaligned partnerships, and indefensible spending decisions.

---

## Raw Schema Data

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
    "itemListElement": [
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 1,
            "name": "Home",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 2,
            "name": "Question",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 3,
            "name": "What Are the Most Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing a Stakeholder-Driven Approach to Rfp Evaluation?",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-implementing-a-stakeholder-driven-approach-to-rfp-evaluation/"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Organization",
    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization",
    "name": "Greeks.Live",
    "url": "https://greeks.live/",
    "description": "Greeks.live is the definitive toolkit for the professional options trader, dedicated to empowering our users with institutional-grade data, advanced analytics, and a comprehensive suite of trading tools designed to provide a decisive edge in the market. Every article and guide published under the Greeks.live name is a product of our deep commitment to data-driven analysis and our mission to support the global trading community.",
    "email": "support@greeks.live",
    "logo": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Greeks.Live-Logo-Icon.svg"
    },
    "hasPart": [
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "About Us",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "App Download Page",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live/#/download/basic_trade"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Newcomers' Guide",
            "url": "https://twisty-sign-c8b.notion.site/Guide-for-Greeks-live-X-Deribit-Newbies-5a08a3052822427d800af6eaf3704c8d"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Knowledge Base",
            "url": "https://linktr.ee/greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Option Terminology",
            "url": "https://greekslive.notion.site/88dfc00e7c584d4d8969b6302a79a12f?pvs=4"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Terms of Service",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/tos"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Disclaimer",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/disclaimer"
        }
    ],
    "sameAs": [
        "https://x.com/greekslive",
        "https://youtube.com/@greeks_live?si=-KjT0Lkw4WUCI0tD",
        "https://t.me/greekslive_notifications",
        "https://t.me/greekslive",
        "https://pinterest.com/greekslive/"
    ],
    "makesOffer": [
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "RFQ Platform",
                "url": "https://rfq.greeks.live",
                "description": "Execute institutional-grade block trades for crypto options and futures. This platform provides deep, over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity via a professional Request for Quote system.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Lending Tools",
                "url": "https://lend.greeks.live",
                "description": "Manage crypto lending and borrowing activities to earn yield or secure loans. This suite of tools helps users analyze interest rates and manage collateralized debt positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Data Lab",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/datalab/BTC",
                "description": "Analyze historical and real-time options data with advanced metrics. This tool is designed for backtesting strategies and identifying market trends through comprehensive data visualization.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Profit & Loss Analysis (PnL)",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pnl_analysis",
                "description": "Track and analyze the Profit and Loss (PnL) of your options portfolio. This tool provides detailed performance metrics to help traders evaluate and refine their strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Position Visualization",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pv/BTC",
                "description": "Visualize complex options positions and their corresponding risk profiles. This tool generates payoff diagrams to help traders intuitively understand potential profit, loss, and exposure.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Options Calculator",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/calculator",
                "description": "Calculate the theoretical price and risk parameters ('the Greeks') of crypto options. An essential tool for pricing new trades and analyzing the sensitivity of existing positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live Main Platform",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/",
                "description": "The central hub for the Greeks.live suite of professional cryptocurrency options and derivatives trading tools. Access analytics, manage positions, and explore the ecosystem.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Community Forum",
                "url": "https://t.greeks.live",
                "description": "Join the official Greeks.live community. Connect with other traders, share insights, and receive the latest updates directly from the team.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for Deribit",
                "url": "http://deribit.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the Deribit exchange. This platform leverages Greeks.live's advanced analytics and tools specifically for users of Deribit's options and futures markets.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for OKX",
                "url": "http://okx.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the OKX exchange. This platform integrates Greeks.live's powerful analytics with the OKX marketplace, focusing on its options and derivatives products.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "GLVS.AI Trading Platform",
                "url": "https://www.glvs.ai/",
                "description": "An AI-powered platform for automated crypto options trading. Leverage advanced algorithms and data-driven signals to develop and deploy sophisticated, hands-free trading strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "API Testnet & Sandbox",
                "url": "https://test.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated testnet environment for developers to test their API integrations and automated trading strategies. This sandbox allows for full functionality testing without risking real funds.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        }
    ],
    "subOrganization": [
        {
            "@type": "Organization",
            "name": "GreeksLive HK Co., Limited",
            "email": "support@greeks.live",
            "telephone": "+852-56418949",
            "address": {
                "@type": "PostalAddress",
                "streetAddress": "Unit 11, 27/F, K. Wah Centre, 191 Java Road",
                "addressLocality": "Hong Kong",
                "addressRegion": "North Point",
                "addressCountry": "CN",
                "postalCode": "0000"
            },
            "geo": {
                "@type": "GeoCoordinates",
                "latitude": "22.2932357",
                "longitude": "114.2022026"
            },
            "image": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wah-Centre-Hong-Kong.jpg"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Article",
    "mainEntityOfPage": {
        "@type": "WebPage",
        "@id": "https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-implementing-a-stakeholder-driven-approach-to-rfp-evaluation/"
    },
    "headline": "What Are the Most Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing a Stakeholder-Driven Approach to Rfp Evaluation? \u25b4 Question",
    "description": "A stakeholder-driven RFP evaluation's integrity is a function of its system architecture, not its project management. \u25b4 Question",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-implementing-a-stakeholder-driven-approach-to-rfp-evaluation/",
    "datePublished": "2025-08-08T22:52:19+00:00",
    "dateModified": "2025-08-08T22:52:21+00:00",
    "articleSection": [
        "Question"
    ],
    "author": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "publisher": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "image": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-execution-platform-optimizing-liquidity-and-risk-management-through-advanced-protocols.jpg",
        "caption": "This abstract composition illustrates a sophisticated institutional digital asset derivatives ecosystem. A central transparent sphere, embodying dynamic implied volatility and aggregated price discovery, balances on a precision execution rail. This signifies a Principal's commitment to high-fidelity execution and robust risk management for multi-leg spreads and large block trades. The integrated architecture, featuring a prime brokerage gateway and an efficient liquidity pipeline, leverages advanced RFQ protocols for optimal capital efficiency, minimizing slippage and ensuring atomic settlement within a high-performance Crypto Derivatives OS."
    },
    "keywords": [
        "Consensus Decision-Making",
        "Decision Architecture",
        "Evaluation Framework",
        "Evaluation Process",
        "Procurement Risk Management",
        "Procurement Strategy",
        "Quantitative Scoring",
        "RFP Evaluation",
        "RFP Evaluation Process",
        "RFP Pitfalls",
        "RFP Scoring Model",
        "Stakeholder Management",
        "Strategic Sourcing",
        "Vendor Selection Criteria",
        "Vendor Viability"
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "WebSite",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/",
    "potentialAction": {
        "@type": "SearchAction",
        "target": "https://options.greeks.live/?s=search_term_string",
        "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
    }
}
```


---

**Original URL:** https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-implementing-a-stakeholder-driven-approach-to-rfp-evaluation/
