What RFPs Measure — and What They Miss

By Justin Kurtz, Director of Live Events

A colleague of mine was recently onsite at a trade show, supporting one of our longtime clients. During the show, someone stopped by the booth and asked a familiar question: “Who designed and built this?”

Our client made the introduction. The visitor explained they were planning a formal RFP for an upcoming program and wanted to include whoever built the booth. Then our client said something that caught us off guard.

“Yeah, we’ve done the whole RFP process many times before. You might learn a few things going through it. But honestly? I wouldn’t waste your time. If you want things done right,” they said, gesturing toward my colleague, “you’ve already found your team.”

I’ve been in the live environments and events industry a long time, and I’ve almost never heard feedback like that. It was both flattering — and raised a bigger question. If people on both sides of the table clearly hate the RFP process, what gives?

RFPs Aren’t Going Away — and That’s Okay
To be clear: I’m not arguing that RFPs should disappear. In our industry (especially when working with large, global organizations) formal procurement processes are often required. Running an RFP isn’t optional; it’s a worthwhile responsibility. RFPs create structure, documentation, and a sense of fairness. In the right contexts, they’re an important safeguard.

The issue isn’t that RFPs exist. It’s what they’re designed to measure — and what they inevitably miss. RFPs are optimized for comparison at a single moment in time. They’re good at evaluating scope, timelines, and line-item costs. They create the appearance of objectivity and control in complex decisions.

By design, they tend to reward:

• Optimistic assumptions over realistic ones
• Lower upfront cost over lower total cost
• Polished proposals over proven execution
• Short-term efficiency over long-term value

But experiential programs don’t live on paper. They live in the gray areas: how clearly teams communicate under pressure, how accurately risks are identified and resolved before they become issues, and how consistently a partner delivers over time. Those things rarely show up in an RFP response.

And that doesn’t mean the RFP process is broken. It means it’s incomplete.

Value Is Proven Over Time
Experiential programs are rarely one-off efforts. They evolve, scale, and adapt to changing objectives and constraints. Yet selection processes often treat partners as interchangeable vendors, rather than long-term collaborators whose value compounds over time. What’s missing from most RFPs is the hardest thing to quantify: what it’s actually like to work together.

The comment our client made on the show floor wasn’t the result of a strong pitch or a competitive bid. It came from years of shared experience — programs delivered, challenges navigated, trust built gradually. That kind of value can’t be captured in a spreadsheet. It shows up in fewer surprises, clearer communication, and more predictable budgets.

RFPs can help you choose a partner. They can’t tell you what the partnership will feel like two, five, or ten years in.

A More Honest Way to Think About RFPs
The most effective organizations treat RFPs as a starting point, not a finish line. They use them to establish baseline capabilities and constraints — but leave room for judgment, experience, and long-term thinking. They look beyond line items to consider teams, processes, and track records. And they give meaningful input to the people who will actually work alongside vendors day to day.

Because the goal shouldn’t be to win a bid or find the cheapest option. It should be to start a relationship that delivers value — consistently, predictably, and over time.