Not Every RFP Is Worth Your Time
Government procurement is supposed to be fair and open. In practice, some RFPs are published with a predetermined winner in mind, contain requirements that only one supplier can meet, or have terms so onerous that no rational business would accept them. Recognizing these red flags early saves you from investing significant time and money in bids you cannot win.
This guide will help you identify the warning signs and make informed bid/no-bid decisions.
Red Flag 1: Hyper-Specific Requirements That Match One Supplier
What to look for: Requirements that describe a specific product, technology, or methodology by name (or describe it so precisely that only one supplier's offering matches). For example: "The solution must use XYZ Corporation's proprietary framework version 3.2 or equivalent" -- where no equivalent exists.
What it means: The requirement may have been written with input from the incumbent or a preferred supplier. This is sometimes legitimate (genuine interoperability requirements), but when you see multiple such requirements stacking up, the procurement may be wired.
What to do: Submit a question during the Q&A period asking whether alternative approaches are acceptable. If the answer is no and you do not offer the specified solution, this is a no-bid.
Red Flag 2: Unreasonably Short Response Times
What to look for: An RFP for a complex multi-million-dollar engagement with a two-week response deadline. Compare this to the norm: three to six weeks for most federal RFPs, longer for large or complex procurements.
What it means: A very short timeline suggests the buyer expects only one or two pre-positioned suppliers to respond. Suppliers who already know the requirement (perhaps from pre-RFP engagement) have a significant advantage.
What to do: Consider whether you can realistically prepare a competitive proposal in the time available. If not, your time is better spent on other opportunities.
Red Flag 3: Past Performance Requirements That Exclude New Entrants
What to look for: Requirements like "The supplier must have completed at least five contracts of similar scope and value with the Government of Canada in the past three years." This specifically excludes companies with relevant commercial experience, companies that have worked with provincial governments, and new entrants.
What it means: The requirement is designed (intentionally or not) to limit competition to a small pool of existing government contractors. This is especially problematic when combined with other restrictive requirements.
What to do: If your experience is relevant but does not technically meet the stated criteria, submit a question asking whether commercial or sub-national government experience qualifies. If not, assess whether you should team with a prime who meets the requirement.
Red Flag 4: Suspiciously Detailed Statement of Work
What to look for: A Statement of Work that reads more like an implementation plan than a set of requirements. It describes not just what needs to be delivered, but exactly how, using what tools, with what team structure, following what processes. This level of detail is unusual in an RFP and suggests someone with intimate knowledge of the client environment wrote or heavily influenced it.
What it means: The SOW may have been drafted by or in consultation with the incumbent supplier. Other bidders are at a significant information disadvantage.
What to do: Compare the level of detail in the SOW with other similar procurements from the same department. If it is unusually prescriptive, factor this information asymmetry into your bid/no-bid decision.
Red Flag 5: Evaluation Criteria Heavily Weighted Toward Subjective Factors
What to look for: Evaluation criteria where 50% or more of the technical score is based on subjective factors like "understanding of the requirement" or "quality of the approach," with no clear scoring rubric or benchmarks for what constitutes an excellent versus adequate response.
What it means: Subjective criteria give evaluators more discretion, which can be used (consciously or unconsciously) to favor a preferred supplier. This does not necessarily mean the procurement is wired, but it increases risk.
What to do: In your proposal, be as concrete and specific as possible. Use metrics, case studies, and detailed descriptions that make your quality undeniable to any fair evaluator.
Red Flag 6: Onerous Terms and Conditions
What to look for: Unlimited liability clauses, unreasonable intellectual property assignments (requiring you to transfer all IP developed under the contract), extremely short payment terms, or excessive insurance requirements relative to the contract value.
What it means: Either the buyer has not thought carefully about the terms (a sign of an inexperienced procurement team), or the terms reflect genuine risk that should be priced accordingly.
What to do: Price the risk. If the terms require unlimited liability, factor the cost of additional insurance or the expected value of potential claims into your price. Submit questions asking whether specific terms are negotiable. If the terms are truly unacceptable, walk away.
Red Flag 7: The Budget Does Not Match the Scope
What to look for: A complex, multi-year engagement with a budget that is clearly insufficient, or the opposite: a straightforward requirement with an unusually generous budget.
What it means: An insufficient budget may mean the government expects suppliers to "buy in" (price below cost to win), or it reflects unrealistic expectations about the effort required. An unusually generous budget for simple work may indicate the procurement is designed to fund a specific supplier.
What to do: If the budget seems low, price honestly and explain your assumptions. If you cannot deliver quality work at that budget, do not bid. Submitting a price you cannot sustain helps no one.
Red Flag 8: Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs)
What to look for: In Canada, an ACAN is a public notice stating that the government intends to award a contract to a specific supplier without competition. Other suppliers can challenge the ACAN if they can demonstrate they meet the requirements.
What it means: An ACAN is not inherently unfair -- it is a transparent mechanism for sole-sourcing when legitimate justifications exist. But if you see frequent ACANs from the same department for similar work, it may indicate a pattern of avoiding competition.
What to do: If you believe you can meet the stated requirements, submit a challenge during the ACAN posting period (usually 15 calendar days). You will need to demonstrate capability specifically and credibly.
Using Data to Make Better Decisions
When evaluating opportunities on TenderIQ, look at the posting history for the contracting department. Do they repeatedly award to the same supplier? Has this same requirement been tendered before, and if so, who won? This historical context helps you assess whether the procurement is genuinely competitive.
Red Flag 9: No Industry Day or Q&A Period
What to look for: A complex procurement with no planned industry consultation, no bidders' conference, and no Q&A period (or a Q&A window of only two to three days).
What it means: The buyer may not want to answer questions that could expose weaknesses in the RFP or give new entrants the context they need to compete effectively.
What to do: If there is a Q&A period, use it aggressively. If there is not, weigh the risk of bidding without clarification.
Key Takeaways
- Not every published RFP represents a genuine competitive opportunity. Learning to spot red flags saves time and money.
- Hyper-specific requirements, unreasonably short timelines, and past performance criteria that exclude new entrants are the most common signs of a wired procurement.
- Always submit clarification questions when you encounter questionable requirements -- the answers (or lack thereof) are informative.
- Use historical contract award data to assess whether a buyer has a pattern of awarding to the same supplier.
- When red flags stack up, the best decision is often to walk away and invest your proposal resources in opportunities where you have a genuine chance of winning.