Marketing & GrowthFree
RFP Requirements Fit and Scoring Guide
Every requirement priced by the points it actually moves, then checked against what happened the last time you sold it.
Tolcarne's champion sent the draft over: 62 requirements, 14 of them mandatory pass or fail, and 48 scored across 500 points. Sort those 48 by how differently the four bidders would answer them, and 29 of them, 60.4%, land inside a single point of each other. They carry 282 points, 56.4% of the total, and cannot separate anybody. On the list as drafted the incumbent scores 389.84 and Tolcarne 353.16, so the gap is 36.68 points.
Eight things Tolcarne is genuinely strong on appear nowhere in the draft. Priced by weight times the margin over the closest rival, they are worth 43.20 points. Then each one gets held against what happened the last time it was sold. Three do not survive: one went into seven deals and slipped on four of them by a mean of 34 days, one wants 10m records against a best live reference of 1.6m, and one is not shipped. That withdraws 19.60 points, 45.4% of the upside.
Of the five left, one could be answered by nobody else, so it is reworded until a second bidder can meet it, which costs 2 points and keeps it in the list. Tolcarne ends 15.08 behind instead of 36.68. Pushing the withdrawn three would put it 4.52 ahead, under a contract carrying service credits from go-live. The ask that decides this deal is a gate. Feeds the positioning map and the competitor teardown.
Why aligning requirements with your strengths is not a method
A requirement the whole field answers the same way is a defect in the list, and public procurement says so in as many words. Federal rules require evaluation factors to support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals. Tolcarne's draft fails that on 29 of its 48 scored requirements, holding 56.4% of the points. Pushing a strength into that block changes nothing, because everybody already scores it identically.
A requirement only you can meet is also a defect, and it gets struck along with the goodwill of whoever put it in. Federal buyers are told to only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the need. So the phrasing test is arithmetic rather than taste: count how many bidders could honestly answer yes. One of Tolcarne's five was a one, which is why it was rewritten in outcome terms until a second bidder could clear it.
The gates carry no weight and decide everything, and the ones worth raising describe a method rather than a result. Five of Tolcarne's 14 do. The EU procurement directive bars specifications naming a particular process which characterises the products or services provided by a specific economic operator where the effect favours or eliminates bidders. Tolcarne fails one such gate on the transport while meeting the underlying need another way, so that single rewording outranks all 218 discriminating points.
How it works
Read the list
Every line parsed with its weight and whether it is a scored item or a hard gate.
Score the field
Your fit and each named rival's, so the spread on every requirement is visible.
Join the record
Each claim matched to prior go-live slips, escalations, and references at this volume.
Phrase them neutrally
Additions written as outcomes, counting how many bidders could honestly answer yes to each.
What you get
- Every stated requirement scored for your fit, with the evidence and reference behind it.
- The field's spread per requirement, so the ones that separate nobody are marked as such.
- Points moved if won, from the published weight and your margin over the closest rival.
- Each claim held against go-live slips and escalations from the last times it was sold.
- Suggested additions in outcome terms, with how many bidders could honestly answer yes.
- Gates split into the one to argue, the ones to disclose, and the ones to leave alone.
Common questions
Is influencing a requirements list even legitimate?
It is, up to a line that can be counted. A requirement written so only you can answer yes is a restrictive provision, and procurement rules exist to strike it. So every suggested requirement here is phrased in outcome terms and carries a count of how many bidders could honestly meet it. Two or three of four is the target. One is a rewrite.
Why not push every requirement we are strongest on?
Because most of them move nothing. Tolcarne's draft has 29 scored requirements the whole field answers within a point of each other, and those hold 56.4% of the 500 points. Adding another one to that block is work with no arithmetic behind it. Only the 19 with real spread can shift a total, and Tolcarne leads on five of them.
What is wrong with claiming something on the roadmap?
A requirement you help write becomes a contract term, and a Q3 commitment written into a scored requirement is a delivery date you agreed to before anybody in engineering saw the RFP. Tolcarne's four-level approval chains were worth 2.80 points that way. They came out, and the fit sheet records them as not shipped rather than quietly scoring them a five.
Should we ask to reword every gate that favours the incumbent?
No, only the ones you fail. Five of Tolcarne's 14 gates describe a method rather than an outcome and two of those five read like the incumbent's own documentation, but Tolcarne clears three of the five as written. Those get left alone. A champion who forwards a list of complaints about gates you already pass spends credibility for nothing.
The three we dropped would have put us ahead. Why drop them?
They would, by 4.52 points, and the honest set leaves Tolcarne 15.08 behind. The biggest of the three went into seven deals and slipped on four, a mean of 34 days, and this contract runs service credits from go-live. So the trade is priced rather than argued: a small paper lead against a penalty clause on a capability that keeps failing.
Does this write the RFP response?
No. This is the work before the RFP is final, which is the only point at which the requirements are still moving. The response itself, the exceptions you have to file and whether to bid at all are separate jobs. Start with the bid decision and take exceptions through the risk note.
What actually gets delivered?
A Sheet with a row per requirement carrying weight, your score, each rival's, the spread, the evidence grade, the delivery record and points moved if won. A Doc with the requirements to suggest, phrased for pasting, the gate to raise, and the strengths to leave out. Loss patterns come from the lost-deal analysis.
RFP Requirements Fit and Scoring Guide
Fill in the form and your workspace opens with the work already underway.