Amazingly, we found an article recommending NOT answering a quote request. This would appear to represent perhaps the worst advice in our situation we’ve ever seen! The article appeared in the March 7, 2013, edition of Inc. magazine, and was also featured in a Linkedin group. The title is “Death by RFP: 7 Reasons Not to Respond”.
The first thought in this article is this: “Flattered to be asked to respond to an RFP? You shouldn’t be. Here’s why they’re bad for your business”. Here’s the link, in case you wish to read the article:
https://www.inc.com/john-warrillow/death-by-rfp-seven-reasons-not-to-respond.html
We’d be very interested if anyone agrees with the response recommended in the 7th reason not to respond. We could not disagree more strongly.
Please share your responses in the comments.
Proficient Sourcing provides candidates to buyers seeking manufacturing suppliers for custom parts or assemblies. In most cases the buyer needs a NEW supplier, perhaps due to something new or an existing supplier failure. In these cases the buyer depends upon a responsible response to the inquiry, which is usually a drawing and/or request for quote. Our job is to make this as easy for the buyer as we can, and we do this without cost or obligation.
In our case, buyers seeking quotes are often new to us, and also are usually issuing RFQ’s to others. Therefore, regardless of our recommended shop (and sometimes shops) and its subsequent quote, we do not expect to win all quotes. So how does it help us NOT to bid on work? Allowing a RFQ to die without response would not encourage a buyer to come to us for future needs. How would that behavior help anyone?
Our position is that the shops we work with are to either no-bid a request for quote or answer it. We recognize there are circumstances where our chances of success are low, but if the requested work fits, NOT answering is a guarantee of NOT getting that work.
As a matter of policy, we also encourage our candidates to note things that might result in a more favorable response. These might include a future date when capacity is more available or when equipment out of service is to be returned to duty. It also might be that if certain tolerances were changed, a quote situation could be improved. In a recent case a potentially good supplier no-bid a RFQ because they did not have the necessary measurement equipment or details to ensure a quality outcome.
One thought we have is if we’re bidding against established and satisfactory existing suppliers, we may not win the competition. Such established suppliers know the buyer’s circumstances already, and have a good history. Therefore, they are already almost always providing good terms and pricing, since they know what it takes to succeed with the buyer. Our candidate does not. Our position is to get on the buyer’s list of potential candidates for future work. Maybe those will be more favorable.
But those situations will not happen if we do not bid or at least respond to the RFQ.
Here are some situations where a buyer needs a new supplier: A current supplier fails or goes out of business; the need is for something unavailable via the current supplier base, or the company wishes to outsource something heretofore done internally.
Admittedly job shops are more commodities than product sellers in many cases. That’s surely one reason why the article is not a perfect fit. But it’s also the case that every good shop has a sweet spot, and its our job to find that shop for every RFQ we see. In some cases we can suggest multiple candidates. Check us out.
So while we disagree with advice NOT to answer, the subject begs the question of how to structure the quest for the right supplier so that better results occur. This we have addressed in previous newsletters, and you can access those from our blog listing.
We gladly welcome any advice on this subject!