The tender and procurement industry is big business in Aotearoa. Each year, New Zealand Government agencies spend billions through the Government Electronic Tender Service (GETS) yet evidence increasingly shows that the traditional RFP (Request for Proposal) process is, at best, suboptimal, and in many cases fundamentally flawed.
Despite this, organisations across the public and private sectors continue to issue RFP after RFP, even when outcomes are mixed or disappointing. Much of this is driven by risk aversion, probity requirements, and a desire to demonstrate accountability. But as service delivery shifts toward agile, iterative, measurable results, many argue that the traditional RFP process has a limited future. There is growing sentiment across New Zealand’s technology and consulting communities that change is not only needed it’s inevitable.
On paper, the concept of an RFP is completely sound. A customer outlines their requirements, vendors provide detailed documentation about their solution, pricing, capability, and track record, and the organisation shortlists based on the responses before running a structured evaluation. In theory, this should lead to a fair, transparent, and reasoned decision.
In practice, the shortcomings often outweigh the benefits. Increasing numbers of experienced providers are declining to participate in RFPs because the process doesn’t genuinely measure what determines success.
What's going wrong with the RFP process?
Most people in procurement or leadership roles know just how time consuming, resource intensive, and expensive an RFP exercise is not only for suppliers, but especially for the customer. To justify this investment, you’d expect the outcomes to be consistently strong. Yet, that’s not always the case.
Some of the key problems include:
1. It’s overly prescriptive
RFPs often reduce complex transformation or technology needs into a checklist. This framework rarely assesses the most critical factor in project success: how well the people involved will work together.
Aligned goals, flexibility, communication, and cultural fit consistently rank as the highest contributors to successful outcomes. Yet none of these are meaningfully captured in a tickbox exercise constrained by rigid probity rules.
2. It encourages defensive decision-making
Even when an RFP asks the right questions, many decisions are ultimately made to avoid risk rather than pursue the best possible result. Instead of embracing innovation or partnering with a provider who deeply understands the problem, teams often choose whatever option feels ‘safest’ in the documentation.
3. Consensus dilutes accountability
RFP evaluation panels typically make decisions collectively. While this supports fairness, it also means no individual takes full ownership of the choice. With responsibility diffused, it’s easy for decisionmakers to fall back on “the process” rather than forming a strong and informed point of view.
4. Vendors tell you what you want to hear
Of course they do. With high stakes and a large investment on the line, suppliers craft responses to match expectations. Everyone plays the game because that’s how the system is structured.
Worse, by the time a customer identifies the gaps, they’ve already invested months in the RFP exercise, making it hard to walk away.
5. It removes intuition and real-world human judgement
RFPs treat tools, features, and specifications as the main indicators of success. In reality, 90% of successful delivery comes down to people and their collaboration, adaptability, shared problem solving, and trust.
RFPs measure the tools. They rarely measure the humans who need to work together to make them successful.
So what does a better approach look like for New Zealand?
If we acknowledge that the traditional RFP model is showing its age, the natural question becomes: what should replace it?
A more effective, future-focused approach would:
- Encourage providers to bring fresh thinking and innovative approaches to the business problem not just check compliance against a predefined solution.
- Give vendors enough access and context to deeply understand the organisation and its objectives.
- Allow customers to evaluate cultural fit, working style, and collaboration capabilities not just technical responses.
- Place people and partnership at the heart of the decision, rather than paperwork and process.
So how do you get there?
1. Start with real conversations
Pick up the phone. Speak to trusted partners and get their insights. In New Zealand, our business community is small and those conversations often uncover more value in an hour than an RFP does in three months.
2. Run workshops, not interrogations
Bring shortlisted vendors into collaborative workshops. Let them ask questions, challenge assumptions, and propose ideas. You’ll quickly see how they think, how they communicate, and whether they truly grasp your needs.
3. Trial small pieces of work
If you’re leaning toward a preferred partner, give them a low-risk discovery, prototype, or proof-of-concept. Nothing reveals capability and cultural fit faster than working together on something real.
4. Evaluate on culture, not just capability
‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’ the saying is popular because it’s true.
Success depends on people aligning around a shared vision. Choose the partner you trust to walk alongside you, not just the one with the prettiest documents.
What's the future of RFPs in Aotearoa?
The future is unlikely to be the rigid, box-ticking format we use today. As more NZ organisations embrace agile delivery, iterative value, and human-centred transformation, the procurement process must evolve too.
We expect the most successful selection processes to:
- Put people, collaboration, and cultural fit at the top of the criteria
- Focus on outcomes and value, not feature lists
- Prioritise learning, adaptability, and shared purpose
- Use practical working engagements to validate partnership fit
At the end of the day, transformation succeeds when people succeed together. And no amount of template-driven RFP documentation can replace the power of genuine partnership.
