Engage Vendors with Curiosity
For the facilitator, now is the time to take a deep breath, put on your poker face, and prepare for lots of conversations, emails, probably even text messages with assertive sales representatives from the vendors you’re considering.
Our aim at this point is to provide enough helpful information for vendors to represent their potential fit for us… while keeping things as fair and equal throughout the consideration group as we can. For organizations with stringent procurement rules, they will likely guide how you engage with vendors, share all information with each of them, and more. Of course, follow your specific guidelines anywhere that these field notes differ.
I’m writing this section as I deliver it, that is, as a third-party representative who doesn’t share my client’s name until it’s time for mutual non-disclosure agreements. That means the Request for Information is anonymous, using a client profile (industry, location, size, annual revenues, etc.).
A lot of vendors are unexcited to engage without the prospective customer’s name. I stay strong as long as I can, and then work with project sponsors on whether revealing information ahead of schedule is worth it, for any vendors unwilling to proceed with only a company profile, rather than a name.
For teams conducting their own vendor selection, it will be evident from the moment you send the RFI who’s seeking a solution. In that case, be choosier about how you represent requirements and use cases before MNDAs are executed.
You might be asking, “why aren’t we doing a Request for Proposal?” RFPs are a common tool.
At FlexPoint, we strongly prefer an RFI over an RFP early in a vendor selection. This allows us to share anonymous requirements with more vendors and narrow to proposals with much more information in hand. If we start with an RFP, we need to execute mutual non-disclosure agreements, conduct discovery, and provide a lot more information to make it feasible for vendors to provide realistic proposals – and it’s simply not realistic to do this with more than three or so vendors.
In short: we like to start with an RFI, allow time for the vendor teams to understand what we’re seeking, and request proposals from the three vendors that we believe are the strongest contenders based on far more information than we had at the start of this journey.
This Phase at a Glance
In the Vendor Engagement phase, our goal is to engage respectfully and productively with vendors (without oversharing!) to get a clear sense of which options may work well.
Here are facilitator activities at a glance:
Draft RFI with prioritized requirements and envisioned future state
Send RFI to vendors
Support vendors’ clarifying questions and conduct initial fit discussions
Compile vendor responses
Facilitate response consideration and narrow vendors to proceed
Execute MNDAs with vendors
Here are selection team activities at a glance:
Review vendor responses, noting questions and initial thoughts
As a group, align on vendors to proceed to demos
Lead vendor MNDA execution
At this point in the project, our vendor count starts at around ten and narrows to about five. Through vendor responses and discussions, we can be more confident that the vendors proceeding to demos have a real chance of meeting our needs.
Key Activities
Let’s walk through each of the activities in this phase, with what success looks like and considerations to work through.
Draft RFI with prioritized requirements and envisioned future state
Compile an anonymized client background, requirements, and questions into a Request for Information. Know that the more detailed your RFI is, the longer it will take vendors to respond. So, I aim for a few targeted questions about the vendor’s background specific to this ask, along with indicating requirements or use case fulfilment.
Here’s a sample outline, for you to refine for your specific use.
Descriptions of the organization seeking a solution and the vendor selection process
Background and request overview: our organization profile and what we’re seeking to accomplish with a new solution
An overview of the vendor selection activities and timeline (to elicit any major conflicts or constraints from the vendor), calling out the response deadline very clearly (include the deadline date and time of day, with time zone)
Point of contact: share the facilitator information and potentially an intuitive booking link for 30-minute meetings
Questions for the vendor, such as:
A summary of the firm and relevant offering that the vendor is basing the response on (I’ve gotten to the end of a consideration process, and the vendor said they answered requirements fulfilment based on a bunch of extra modules, so I’ve learned to ask specifically which products or modules they’re proposing early on)
How well they expect to fulfill the requirements we’ve provided
Give a clear scale for vendors to use (knowing that the scores are self-reported, so we need to be critical in evaluating them)
Scoring levels may be something like:
0: not possible through solution
1: may be enabled through integration
2: enabled through customization
3: enabled through configuration
4: enabled through core out-of-the-box functionality
Proposed implementation approach and directional timeline, given the use cases and requirements as shared (we expect the approach to be clarified and refined through the process, so this is more about the vendor describing their typical approach for a customer like us)
Directional cost estimates, both one-time and ongoing (vendors will be uneasy providing estimates at this point, so make it clear that we’re not holding them to these numbers but want a sense for the directional cost)
Willingness to provide a tailored demonstration of several use cases shared (so vendors can’t say we didn’t ask for it later)
Willingness to provide two to three references using the solution being proposed if they are among the finalists (depending on the complexity and scope of the system, we may want to speak with three – and sometimes, when we aim for three, we’re only successful in getting time with two)
Specify characteristics that would make a reference relevant, such as deal complexity/lead time or transaction volume; typically vendors aim for references within the same industry, but that might not be the most helpful comparison for us
Make it clear that we’re not asking for references now, but we want to be clear with vendors that we will ask for references later (since some of them refuse that step or take many weeks to accomplish it)
Solution goals and requirements (at the level you’re comfortable sharing without an MNDA)
Example use cases, to be demonstrated later (again, at the level you’re comfortable sharing without an MNDA); these set us up for demonstrations well and provide a sanity check for vendors on their potential fit, beyond a laundry list of requirements
Give vendors enough time to respond well to the RFI without slowing down the project to a halt. I tend to allow two or three weeks for vendors to respond, depending on the complexity of our requirements and the scale of the solution.
I often share the RFI as a PDF and a response template for the requirements fulfilment portion as an Excel spreadsheet, to make it more likely that vendors answer each question (and easier for us to compile later).
While much of the RFI will be familiar to the selection team, since they worked on preparing various components, make sure to provide time for them to review it as compiled, in case they want to adjust how we’re representing the organization after all the details have been combined.
Send RFI to vendors
With the Request for Information complete and reviewed by the selection team, it’s time to share it.
But first a note of caution: I’ve had persistent and creative vendors reach out to people they think are on the selection team or somewhere in the decision-making chain, particularly as they get more information. (Think: deduced email addresses, LinkedIn messages, and the like.)
In my experience, it’s best for the facilitator to be the only point of contact throughout the search, until we’ve made it to negotiations. That way, one person knows all the information that was shared with whom – and can share meaningful information with the other vendors to keep things fair. If you have multiple people engaging with vendors in the early stages, it’s easy to over-share and potentially even over-promise.
So: tell selection team members (and ask them to share with their bosses) to respectfully yet firmly direct any vendor contact to the facilitator.
Okay, back to sending the RFI.
If we have a warm contact at a vendor, use it. This may be a salesperson who’s been haranguing selection team members for months in anticipation of this project (true story, sadly).
If we can’t find a specific person to contact, use the website contact page or chatbot to get a specific email address for sales inquiries. Often, they’re eager to get back you, but sometimes you have to try a few times via different methods. If the contact page or chatbot doesn’t work, you can use the general contact phone number, but this typically takes a few hops to get to a sales rep.
(The moment you start sending emails or chatting with chatbots, expect the cold outreach emails and phone calls to begin. This is another reason only the facilitator is making contact with vendors: to save the others from direct outreach.)
Many vendors have a tiered sales team that we get to work through. Typically, we must engage with a Business Development Representative who is vetting the lead and then connecting us to an Account Executive. The AE will likely lead the sale process, bringing in a Solution Engineer or others with more product, commercial, and/or implementation knowledge to complete details in their response.
The BDR will push hard to understand the organization name (if we’re conducting this part of the process anonymously), and we’ll try very hard not to give it. We’ll start by sharing the industry, location, size, annual revenue, etc. for them to route to the right AE. If they’re truly unwilling to proceed, we’ll work with the project sponsors to plan out next steps.
If we’re already working with the vendor for other purposes, we will need to go through the existing Account Executive to avoid frustrating conversations later. The good news on this is that we likely already have a mutual non-disclosure agreement in place, based on the existing commercial relationship, so we can share information with protections in place.
The bad news is that the ongoing relationship is at risk of becoming strained if we opt not to proceed with their additional solution. (Remember: all but one vendor will be disappointed at the end of this process, and we don’t know which one it will be.) Keep things respectful and firm, don’t over-promise or show any preferential treatment based on the existing business, and navigate any awkwardness with compassion.
Support vendors’ clarifying questions and conduct initial fit discussions
Most vendors will ask for a meeting or two at this stage. I like to offer up an introductory meeting of 30 minutes, and many vendors will want to ask specific questions as they work through the RFI (which prompts a second session, several days later).
Navigate meetings as fairly and productively as possible, sharing the same information with each vendor. You may need to summarize the information you’ve shared in one-off discussions and send the compilation to all vendors, to make sure they’re on a level playing field.
These meetings are just with the facilitator (since we’re keeping the organization name confidential), so bring follow-up questions to key subject matter experts on the selection team where they go into more detail than you understand (or punt the question for later). It’s best to have these SMEs teed up to support research, either through quick touch-bases or simply holding time to research and respond to questions.
Again, share substantial clarifications and updates with all vendors.
It’s almost inevitable that at least one vendor will ask for an extension in providing their response. Ideally, you scheduled the response deadline working around major holidays, potentially considering multiple countries, if you’re engaging vendors based elsewhere.
(When selecting your initial response deadline, consider building in your default back-up date, if extension requests come in. If the facilitator has approval to slip the deadline to a specific alternate, you can prevent an “emergency” sponsor or selection team meeting.)
If I give an extension to one vendor, I tend to give it to all vendors, again out of fairness. So: consider the extension request and decide whether to say yes… for everyone. Remember that it’s not the end of the world if you say no, respectfully and firmly.
You may also have a vendor (or a few) decline to respond to the RFI after they understand what we’re seeking in greater detail. As long as you have several promising vendors responding, this is fine. If too many vendors in the mix are dropping, consider whether your RFI expectations are reasonable and pivot as needed to maintain a productive, fair evaluation.
Compile vendor responses
Create a quantitative and qualitative scorecard to use in evaluating vendor engagement and responses. You’ll fill it in for each vendor based on their responses (answering questions from the RFI, indicating requirements fulfilment, etc.) and based on your experience with them.
I tend to use a Likert scale (1 to 5, with the low end indicating poorer quality and the high end indicating excellence) for the qualitative items, defining the specific score for each element. Timeframes, costs, and requirements fulfilment will at least start out quantitative, with costs potentially to be summarized into t-shirt sizes.
I like to include categories and elements like:
Response overall quality, including timeliness, completeness, quality, responsiveness, and professionalism
Confidence in firm and offering, based on the vendor’s responses to questions on their track record of success, experience with similar efforts, implementation approach, willingness to demonstrate scenarios, and willingness to provide reference checks
Directional implementation timeframes (typically stated in rather large ranges at this point)
Directional implementation and ongoing costs (also expect rather large ranges)
In my experience, ongoing prices typically go down after negotiation, while implementation time and prices often go up after detailed scoping conversations
Since cost estimates can change a lot through the course of the vendor evaluation process, consider representing costs in t-shirt sizes (like small, medium, and large) rather than absolutes
T-shirt sizes give information about options relative to each other without distracting with specific numbers that will certainly get refined
Requirements fulfilment, likely summarized by category or business goal
Remember that these numbers are self-reported by vendors, so we will need to pressure test them through demonstrations and discussions
But this is helpful information to shape our initial understanding of how well each option can meet our needs
A note on the response quality elements: how easy or hard a vendor is to work with is part of my evaluation process, since we’re seeking a long-term partner. It would be fair to counter that with, “but we won’t be working with the sales team long-term; we care about the implementation and support teams.” Yes and… we are making the best choices we can with the information available to us. That’s another reason we’re thinking about this effort as narrowing the cone of uncertainty: we’re constantly testing and refining hypotheses through this process.
When you receive vendor responses, score them using consistent levels, and jot any specific questions you have. Create a summary of your findings by vendor, making it easy to trace back to each of their responses.
Share the summary findings, full analysis, and the full set of vendor responses with the selection team, asking them to review and note their questions and initial thoughts prior to the team discussion. (I typically don’t give the selection team their own scorecard at this point; I save that for demonstrations and due diligence. But if you have a selection team that craves structure, give them a simple scorecard to fill in for each vendor.)
Facilitate response consideration and narrow vendors to proceed
It’s time for another selection team alignment session! Share your summary analysis of all the vendor responses, plus all of the response materials shared by vendors. Make sure to stagger the response deadline and the alignment meeting enough that selection team members have time to make it through responses.
I recommend working with the project sponsors to determine whether it’s most helpful for the facilitator to propose specific vendors to proceed to demos, or if the group will respond better to the summary analysis alone. Either can be effective (and the facilitator is just one of several voices), so choose what seems best for this specific group.
In my experience, it works best for the facilitator to present their summary analysis (potentially with their proposed five-ish vendors to proceed), then invite each selection team member to share their thoughts. We want to hear from everyone, not just the most senior or talkative folks in the group.
Our goal for the session is for everyone to feel confident that we’ve considered the options thoroughly and are moving forward with the vendors we’re most hopeful will be a great fit for us. This is based on the combination of qualitative and quantitative factors, so it’s both art and science. (Remember: we’re seeking a technology partner here.)
We may have follow-up questions for vendors. If they’re critical to understand before finalizing the demo list, end the alignment session with a ranking of options and key questions to answer. The facilitator will work with vendors to get a quick turnaround on answers, then reconvene the selection team for another sync to share new information and align on demo vendors.
After the selection team has aligned on the five or so vendors to proceed to demos, the facilitator drives immediate next steps.
Work with project sponsors to find or prepare the organization’s standard mutual non-disclosure agreement, as we want to share this with vendors moving forward.
Notify the vendors who are moving forward, with very clear next steps on executing an MNDA and preparing demonstrations. This will be the first that these vendors hear the organization name, so be ready to answer some follow-up questions as they update the opportunity in their CRM (customer relationship management system).
Share with these vendors that we want to execute an MNDA and then schedule and prepare for demos. Share the organization’s standard MNDA and recommend that the sales contact shares with their legal team, requesting to use it. (Some vendors will be adamant about using their own template, and expect everyone to insist on redlines, so this deserves its own section of explanation, next!)
After the “yes” vendors have been notified and you have the sense that things are going smoothly, share with the remaining vendors that they were not selected as a potential fit. (Don’t share the organization name.)
Vendors will likely ask why they didn’t move forward. It can seem nice to give them feedback, but sharing any specifics can open the facilitator or the larger organization up to uncomfortable discussions and, even worse, threats of legal action. I recommend sharing that all vendors were scored on their qualitative and quantitative responses and considered by the selection team, and other options were deemed a better potential fit.
Some vendors will ask for time to discuss. I tend to say yes to this request as long as the vendor has been respectful up to this point. In the discussion, be warm and make sure to stick to the script! Truly. The downside risk is far worse than the upside potential here.
(You can likely tell I’m speaking from experience. I’ll stay light on details but know that sharing something I thought the vendor may want to be aware of going forward turned into very long, angry, and litigious emails with some unfortunate escalations. It turned out fine, but I want to spare you learning this the hard way!)
Execute MNDAs with vendors
It works well for the facilitator to begin as the go-between on MNDAs, working directly with the vendor sales contact and then directly with a project sponsor or legal representative. If, however, you get several rounds of redlines deep, it may be more effective for the vendor’s and our legal representatives to coordinate directly. (Just be careful to work with project sponsors on all of this, as engaging legal teams typically has a cost associated with it.)
Ultimately, be clear who has the authority to approve the MNDA and who is expected to sign (on both sides) and provide them logistical support as they work through the substantive details.
Advanced Class
As facilitator, be prepared to be a contrarian voice in this and subsequent narrowing discussions if the group seems to have a blind spot. The facilitator has a front-row seat to how vendors act in the big and small moments of the evaluation, so you may be the only one who sees a certain aspect of their engagement. Be brave and speak up about perceived blind spots and potential gotchas, even if it simply rounds out discussion but doesn’t move the needle on the outcome.
Also be careful to balance leaving space for discussion and getting the group to move toward alignment. Pay attention to group dynamics and make sure to draw out all voices in the group. You may need to experiment with different methods on this. For instance, I like to have people share quick rankings or impressions with me directly, then I share the group’s overall thoughts and invite people to share more. This seems to break the ice, capture everyone’s initial opinion before groupthink sets in, and result in richer conversations.
Tools & Artifacts
We begin Vendor Engagement with a Request for Information, an anonymized description of the organization, what we’re seeking, and several questions for each vendor to respond to.
This results in vendor responses, which we:
Compile: saving off copies for the selection team to review, potentially with instructions for which order to review materials if there are multiple documents
Analyze: qualitatively and quantitatively score, aiming to tease out how well the proposed solution can meet our needs
Summarize: describe vendor response analysis at a high level, giving the selection team the lay of the land before they review responses in detail
