What a 2005 audience member and a 2025 LinkedIn DM tell us about behavioral readiness
This morning, I received a LinkedIn DM from Edward Smith asking about my thoughts on the RFP process. His response stopped me cold—not because it was surprising, but because I’d heard it before.
Twenty years ago. From an audience member who put it more bluntly:
“They don’t do dick.”
Let me show you what I mean.
The 2025 Conversation (This Morning)
Me: “What do you think about the RFP process – positives and negatives?”
Edward:
“We tend to pass on quite a few, as they often seem highly speculative with an air of market research about them. Also often feels the buyer knows where they’re placing business before they ‘put pen to paper’.”
“The hit rate on pub sec bids is low – and that includes being on direct award frameworks… I think it’s dated and could very easily be improved to include a degree of low risk live pilot discovery which would ultimately drive efficiency into the process.”
Translation:
- Organizations use RFPs for free market research (not genuine evaluation)
- Decisions are pre-made (RFP is compliance theater)
- Suppliers invest enormous effort for minimal return (low hit rate)
- Sequential process (paper → decision) should be replaced with synchronized discovery (live pilot → real performance)
The 2005 Conversation (300 Automotive Executives)
I was explaining how organizations spend enormous time and money creating RFP processes—only to have buyers default to price at the last moment, bypassing all the sophisticated evaluation.
An audience member interrupted:
“I can’t help but disagree with you. I don’t think that they spend any time at all analyzing the RFQs once they’ve sent them out. They go directly to the price auction. We get on a phone call and those who cut the price are those who get the business.”
“You can’t stand here and tell me how much time they spend analyzing the quotes. They don’t. They don’t do dick. That’s the problem.”
My response (2005):
“I agree with you 110%. That’s why these solutions aren’t working. Why did Covisint fail? Why did Ford get rid of their Everest initiative? Why did organizations like the VA after 650 million dollars fail? They created a process which didn’t deliver any of the promise to participating suppliers, only to have buyers not use the system.”
Twenty Years. Same Problem. Same Frustration.
What the 2005 gentleman said:
- Buyers don’t analyze quotes
- They default to price
- Suppliers waste time on RFPs that don’t matter
What Edward said in 2025:
- RFPs feel like market research exercises
- Buyers know the answer before starting
- Low hit rates despite enormous supplier investment
- Process is “dated” and needs live pilot discovery
The wording is different.
The pattern is identical.
The RFP process hasn’t fundamentally changed in 20 years—despite billions spent on procurement technology.
Why This Pattern Persists: Layer 1 vs. Layer 2
Organizations invest heavily in Layer 1 (technological capability):
- RFP platforms ✅
- Supplier evaluation systems ✅
- Scoring algorithms ✅
- Approval workflows ✅
- Catalog management ✅
But they ignore Layer 2 (behavioral readiness):
- Are buyers incentivized to use sophisticated evaluation? ❌
- Does the process match operational reality? ❌
- Is evaluation effort worth the time investment? ❌
- Do performance metrics reward thorough analysis or speed? ❌
Result:
Buyers create RFPs (Layer 1 process exists) → Suppliers invest effort responding → Buyers bypass evaluation and default to price or pre-determined choice (Layer 2 reality) → Suppliers frustrated (wasted investment) → Trust erodes → System credibility collapses
This is what I call the Evolution Trap:
When technological capability (Layer 1) exceeds behavioral readiness (Layer 2), users create workarounds that undermine the system’s intended function.
What I Said in 2005 (And What’s Still True Today)
From the 2005 keynote transcript:
“The reality is you have to first of all start by identifying the commodity groupings… know what the floor-to-ceiling price is… understand the tools they’re going to use to make their buying decisions.”
“Focus your energy on those areas which produce the best results… there are some transactional bases where certain commodities will be most beneficial, and there are other ones where the more traditional methods will be more beneficial.”
Translation:
NOT ALL PURCHASES SHOULD USE THE SAME PROCESS.
- High-value, complex, strategic purchases → RFP process makes sense (worth the investment)
- Transactional, commodity, repeatable purchases → RFP process is waste (low ROI)
But most organizations apply one-size-fits-all RFP methodology across everything.
Result: The 2005 gentleman saying “they don’t do dick” because buyers skip evaluation on items where RFP doesn’t make sense.
Result: Edward in 2025 saying “hit rate is low” because suppliers respond to RFPs where the decision is already made or the evaluation isn’t genuine.
Edward’s Solution: “Low Risk Live Pilot Discovery”
What Edward suggested:
“Could very easily be improved to include a degree of low risk live pilot discovery which would ultimately drive efficiency into the process.”
This is brilliant—and it’s exactly what I was teaching in 2005:
Sequential RFP Process (Current):
- Write RFP (weeks)
- Suppliers respond (weeks)
- Evaluate responses (weeks/months)
- Make decision (often pre-determined or defaulting to price)
- Award contract
- THEN discover if supplier can actually perform
Synchronized Discovery Process (What Edward Proposes):
- Identify qualified suppliers (days)
- Run low-risk live pilots (weeks)
- Evaluate ACTUAL PERFORMANCE (not paper promises)
- Award based on REAL CAPABILITY (not theoretical responses)
- Scale what already works
This is agent-based modeling:
Don’t evaluate based on what suppliers SAY they can do (RFP responses).
Evaluate based on what suppliers ACTUALLY do (live pilot performance).
This is Data Singularity:
Intelligence emerges from real operational data (pilot results), not from sequential document collection (RFP responses).
Why Organizations Don’t Do This
The answer is behavioral architecture—not technology limitations.
Organizations stick with sequential RFP processes because:
- Policy requires it (procurement compliance, not performance optimization)
- It distributes accountability (committee evaluation diffuses blame)
- It creates paper trail (audit protection, not decision quality)
- It delays decision (analysis paralysis disguised as “thorough evaluation”)
- It satisfies “fair process” requirement (everyone gets same questions, even if questions don’t predict performance)
But as Edward noted: “Often feels the buyer knows where they’re placing business before they ‘put pen to paper’.”
So the RFP becomes theater:
- Creates illusion of fair process
- Satisfies compliance requirements
- Protects from audit scrutiny
- But doesn’t actually inform decision
This is why suppliers are frustrated.
This is why hit rates are low.
This is why the 2005 gentleman said “they don’t do dick.”
Because Layer 1 process (RFP exists) doesn’t match Layer 2 reality (decision already made or defaulting to price).
What This Means for Suppliers
Edward’s approach is smart:
“We tend to pass on quite a few, as they often seem highly speculative with an air of market research about them.”
Translation: Don’t waste time on RFPs where buyer isn’t genuinely evaluating.
How to identify genuine vs. theater RFPs:
RED FLAGS (Theater RFPs – Pass on These):
- Extremely tight deadline (suggests decision already made, just need compliance documentation)
- Overly generic questions (suggests market research, not supplier selection)
- No buyer engagement during Q&A (suggests low commitment)
- Requirements that perfectly match incumbent capabilities (suggests renewal disguised as competition)
- Public sector with pre-determined frameworks (low hit rate as Edward noted)
GREEN FLAGS (Genuine Evaluation – Worth Your Time):
- Buyer willing to discuss pilot/proof-of-concept (genuine interest in performance)
- Questions focused on HOW you’ll deliver (not just WHAT you’ll deliver)
- Opportunity for live demonstrations (evaluation values actual capability)
- Decision criteria weighted toward performance (not just price)
- Buyer invested in supplier success (partnership mindset, not transactional)
What This Means for Buyers
If your suppliers are saying (like Edward):
- “RFPs feel like market research”
- “Decision seems pre-made”
- “Hit rate is low despite effort”
You have a Layer 2 problem:
Your RFP process (Layer 1) doesn’t match operational reality (Layer 2).
Options:
Option A: Keep Current Process (Honest Assessment)
If your RFP is compliance theater (decision pre-made, just need paper trail):
- Be honest with suppliers (saves them wasted effort)
- Streamline process (don’t ask for 50-page responses if you’ll only read executive summary)
- Acknowledge it’s audit protection (not genuine evaluation)
At least you’re not wasting supplier time on false pretenses.
Option B: Adopt Edward’s Approach (Genuine Improvement)
Replace sequential RFP → decision with synchronized pilot → evaluation:
- Identify 3-5 qualified suppliers (quick qualification, not extensive RFP)
- Run low-risk pilots (actual performance data)
- Evaluate based on REAL results (not theoretical promises)
- Scale what works
You get better data (real performance vs. sales pitches) and suppliers get fair evaluation (actual capability vs. document writing skills).
Option C: Segment by Commodity (What I Taught in 2005)
Not all purchases need same process:
- Strategic/Complex: Full RFP justified (high value, long-term impact)
- Transactional/Commodity: Streamlined evaluation or live pilots (low value, repeatable)
Match evaluation rigor to purchase impact.
The 20-Year Pattern
2005: Audience member frustrated that buyers “don’t do dick” with RFP analysis
2025: Edward frustrated that RFPs feel like “market research” with decisions “pre-made”
20 years. Billions spent on procurement technology. Same supplier frustration.
Why?
Because technology (Layer 1) was deployed without addressing behavioral readiness (Layer 2).
Organizations built sophisticated RFP platforms—but didn’t fix the underlying incentive misalignment, process-reality mismatch, or accountability gaps that cause buyers to bypass evaluation.
As I said in 2005 (and it’s still true today):
“By focusing on process, what you’re going to start to do is focus those RFP activities on those areas which really can benefit from them… I think you’re going to find over the next 12 to 18 months that at least 30 to 40 percent of the commodity groups being purchased will be moved away from that RFP process.”
I said that in 2005.
It’s now 2025.
Still waiting for that shift at scale.
But Edward’s approach shows it’s starting to happen.
The Solution: Behavioral Architecture, Not More Technology
What Edward proposed isn’t new technology.
It’s better architecture:
Synchronize evaluation WITH execution (pilots) rather than separating them (RFP → decision → hope it works).
This is what I built for Canada’s DND in 1998:
Agent-based system that evaluated suppliers based on ACTUAL PERFORMANCE DATA (delivery rates, quality, responsiveness) rather than RFP responses.
Result: 51% → 97.3% next-day delivery success in 3 months.
Why it worked: Behavioral architecture aligned with operational reality.
Why most RFP processes fail: Layer 1 process doesn’t match Layer 2 behavioral incentives.
To Edward Smith
Thank you for the DM this morning.
Your frustration with RFPs that feel like “market research” where buyers “know before pen hits paper” is the 2025 version of what that gentleman said in 2005.
Same pattern. Different words. Twenty years apart.
And your solution—”low risk live pilot discovery”—is exactly the behavioral architecture shift organizations need.
Don’t evaluate what suppliers SAY (RFP responses).
Evaluate what suppliers DO (pilot performance).
That’s agent-based modeling.
That’s Data Singularity.
The Question for 2025
Will we wait another 20 years for this shift to happen?
Or will more organizations follow Edward’s recommendation and replace sequential RFP theater with synchronized pilot discovery?
The 2005 gentleman was right: “They don’t do dick.”
Edward is right in 2025: Decision is often pre-made.
The pattern persists because we keep deploying Layer 1 solutions (better RFP platforms) without addressing Layer 2 problems (behavioral architecture misalignment).
Maybe 2025 is finally the year we fix it.
Watch the 2005 keynote: Reverse Auctions and the Automotive Industry (Q&A)
30
BONUS COVERAGE: THE GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE (2011)
Why 90% of Government Bids Are “Decided” Before the RFP Is Issued
Years after that 2005 keynote, I interviewed Judy Bradt—former Canadian Embassy Trade Commissioner (15+ years) who led 5,000+ firms to win over $250 million in US government contracts.
When I asked about El Gordon’s claim that “90% of government bids are decided before the RFP is issued,” Judy didn’t dispute it. She reframed it:
“Think about the Winter Olympics… 90% of what went into deciding who the winner was happens before they cross the starting line. I want you to encourage people to think about Government Contracting as the business Olympics—so much of the effort, the work, the training, the preparation happens before the RFP drops.”
This isn’t about corruption. It’s about behavioral readiness.
Judy explains what the 2005 audience member and Edward (2025) both experienced: “If you don’t know the buyer, the incumbent, the budget, the history, and the first time you hear about an opportunity is electronically with less than 30 days to go—you’re not doing marketing. You’re doing market research.”
The Layer 2 gap persists on BOTH sides:
Vendors assume: Responding to RFP = opportunity
Government assumes: Posting RFP = fair process
Reality: 90% of success factors exist BEFORE the formal process begins
Her assessment of procurement automation?
“Just because you get an automated notice doesn’t mean if that’s the first time you hear about it you haven’t missed the boat… automating a process is an illusion to say it’s been made universally accessible. This is still the ultimate relationship market.”
Twenty years after “they don’t do dick,” the pattern remains—validated by someone who spent 15 years inside government and 22 years helping vendors navigate it.
Watch the full interview – Over 20,000 views.
Procurement Insights
“They Don’t Do Dick!” Why RFPs Are the Most Misunderstood and Misused Tool in the Procurement World
Posted on October 31, 2025
0
What a 2005 audience member and a 2025 LinkedIn DM tell us about behavioral readiness
This morning, I received a LinkedIn DM from Edward Smith asking about my thoughts on the RFP process. His response stopped me cold—not because it was surprising, but because I’d heard it before.
Twenty years ago. From an audience member who put it more bluntly:
“They don’t do dick.”
Let me show you what I mean.
The 2025 Conversation (This Morning)
Me: “What do you think about the RFP process – positives and negatives?”
Edward:
“We tend to pass on quite a few, as they often seem highly speculative with an air of market research about them. Also often feels the buyer knows where they’re placing business before they ‘put pen to paper’.”
“The hit rate on pub sec bids is low – and that includes being on direct award frameworks… I think it’s dated and could very easily be improved to include a degree of low risk live pilot discovery which would ultimately drive efficiency into the process.”
Translation:
The 2005 Conversation (300 Automotive Executives)
I was explaining how organizations spend enormous time and money creating RFP processes—only to have buyers default to price at the last moment, bypassing all the sophisticated evaluation.
An audience member interrupted:
“I can’t help but disagree with you. I don’t think that they spend any time at all analyzing the RFQs once they’ve sent them out. They go directly to the price auction. We get on a phone call and those who cut the price are those who get the business.”
“You can’t stand here and tell me how much time they spend analyzing the quotes. They don’t. They don’t do dick. That’s the problem.”
My response (2005):
“I agree with you 110%. That’s why these solutions aren’t working. Why did Covisint fail? Why did Ford get rid of their Everest initiative? Why did organizations like the VA after 650 million dollars fail? They created a process which didn’t deliver any of the promise to participating suppliers, only to have buyers not use the system.”
Twenty Years. Same Problem. Same Frustration.
What the 2005 gentleman said:
What Edward said in 2025:
The wording is different.
The pattern is identical.
The RFP process hasn’t fundamentally changed in 20 years—despite billions spent on procurement technology.
Why This Pattern Persists: Layer 1 vs. Layer 2
Organizations invest heavily in Layer 1 (technological capability):
But they ignore Layer 2 (behavioral readiness):
Result:
Buyers create RFPs (Layer 1 process exists) → Suppliers invest effort responding → Buyers bypass evaluation and default to price or pre-determined choice (Layer 2 reality) → Suppliers frustrated (wasted investment) → Trust erodes → System credibility collapses
This is what I call the Evolution Trap:
When technological capability (Layer 1) exceeds behavioral readiness (Layer 2), users create workarounds that undermine the system’s intended function.
What I Said in 2005 (And What’s Still True Today)
From the 2005 keynote transcript:
“The reality is you have to first of all start by identifying the commodity groupings… know what the floor-to-ceiling price is… understand the tools they’re going to use to make their buying decisions.”
“Focus your energy on those areas which produce the best results… there are some transactional bases where certain commodities will be most beneficial, and there are other ones where the more traditional methods will be more beneficial.”
Translation:
NOT ALL PURCHASES SHOULD USE THE SAME PROCESS.
But most organizations apply one-size-fits-all RFP methodology across everything.
Result: The 2005 gentleman saying “they don’t do dick” because buyers skip evaluation on items where RFP doesn’t make sense.
Result: Edward in 2025 saying “hit rate is low” because suppliers respond to RFPs where the decision is already made or the evaluation isn’t genuine.
Edward’s Solution: “Low Risk Live Pilot Discovery”
What Edward suggested:
“Could very easily be improved to include a degree of low risk live pilot discovery which would ultimately drive efficiency into the process.”
This is brilliant—and it’s exactly what I was teaching in 2005:
Sequential RFP Process (Current):
Synchronized Discovery Process (What Edward Proposes):
This is agent-based modeling:
Don’t evaluate based on what suppliers SAY they can do (RFP responses).
Evaluate based on what suppliers ACTUALLY do (live pilot performance).
This is Data Singularity:
Intelligence emerges from real operational data (pilot results), not from sequential document collection (RFP responses).
Why Organizations Don’t Do This
The answer is behavioral architecture—not technology limitations.
Organizations stick with sequential RFP processes because:
But as Edward noted: “Often feels the buyer knows where they’re placing business before they ‘put pen to paper’.”
So the RFP becomes theater:
This is why suppliers are frustrated.
This is why hit rates are low.
This is why the 2005 gentleman said “they don’t do dick.”
Because Layer 1 process (RFP exists) doesn’t match Layer 2 reality (decision already made or defaulting to price).
What This Means for Suppliers
Edward’s approach is smart:
“We tend to pass on quite a few, as they often seem highly speculative with an air of market research about them.”
Translation: Don’t waste time on RFPs where buyer isn’t genuinely evaluating.
How to identify genuine vs. theater RFPs:
RED FLAGS (Theater RFPs – Pass on These):
GREEN FLAGS (Genuine Evaluation – Worth Your Time):
What This Means for Buyers
If your suppliers are saying (like Edward):
You have a Layer 2 problem:
Your RFP process (Layer 1) doesn’t match operational reality (Layer 2).
Options:
Option A: Keep Current Process (Honest Assessment)
If your RFP is compliance theater (decision pre-made, just need paper trail):
At least you’re not wasting supplier time on false pretenses.
Option B: Adopt Edward’s Approach (Genuine Improvement)
Replace sequential RFP → decision with synchronized pilot → evaluation:
You get better data (real performance vs. sales pitches) and suppliers get fair evaluation (actual capability vs. document writing skills).
Option C: Segment by Commodity (What I Taught in 2005)
Not all purchases need same process:
Match evaluation rigor to purchase impact.
The 20-Year Pattern
2005: Audience member frustrated that buyers “don’t do dick” with RFP analysis
2025: Edward frustrated that RFPs feel like “market research” with decisions “pre-made”
20 years. Billions spent on procurement technology. Same supplier frustration.
Why?
Because technology (Layer 1) was deployed without addressing behavioral readiness (Layer 2).
Organizations built sophisticated RFP platforms—but didn’t fix the underlying incentive misalignment, process-reality mismatch, or accountability gaps that cause buyers to bypass evaluation.
As I said in 2005 (and it’s still true today):
“By focusing on process, what you’re going to start to do is focus those RFP activities on those areas which really can benefit from them… I think you’re going to find over the next 12 to 18 months that at least 30 to 40 percent of the commodity groups being purchased will be moved away from that RFP process.”
I said that in 2005.
It’s now 2025.
Still waiting for that shift at scale.
But Edward’s approach shows it’s starting to happen.
The Solution: Behavioral Architecture, Not More Technology
What Edward proposed isn’t new technology.
It’s better architecture:
Synchronize evaluation WITH execution (pilots) rather than separating them (RFP → decision → hope it works).
This is what I built for Canada’s DND in 1998:
Agent-based system that evaluated suppliers based on ACTUAL PERFORMANCE DATA (delivery rates, quality, responsiveness) rather than RFP responses.
Result: 51% → 97.3% next-day delivery success in 3 months.
Why it worked: Behavioral architecture aligned with operational reality.
Why most RFP processes fail: Layer 1 process doesn’t match Layer 2 behavioral incentives.
To Edward Smith
Thank you for the DM this morning.
Your frustration with RFPs that feel like “market research” where buyers “know before pen hits paper” is the 2025 version of what that gentleman said in 2005.
Same pattern. Different words. Twenty years apart.
And your solution—”low risk live pilot discovery”—is exactly the behavioral architecture shift organizations need.
Don’t evaluate what suppliers SAY (RFP responses).
Evaluate what suppliers DO (pilot performance).
That’s agent-based modeling.
That’s Data Singularity.
The Question for 2025
Will we wait another 20 years for this shift to happen?
Or will more organizations follow Edward’s recommendation and replace sequential RFP theater with synchronized pilot discovery?
The 2005 gentleman was right: “They don’t do dick.”
Edward is right in 2025: Decision is often pre-made.
The pattern persists because we keep deploying Layer 1 solutions (better RFP platforms) without addressing Layer 2 problems (behavioral architecture misalignment).
Maybe 2025 is finally the year we fix it.
Watch the 2005 keynote: Reverse Auctions and the Automotive Industry (Q&A)
30
BONUS COVERAGE: THE GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE (2011)
Why 90% of Government Bids Are “Decided” Before the RFP Is Issued
Years after that 2005 keynote, I interviewed Judy Bradt—former Canadian Embassy Trade Commissioner (15+ years) who led 5,000+ firms to win over $250 million in US government contracts.
When I asked about El Gordon’s claim that “90% of government bids are decided before the RFP is issued,” Judy didn’t dispute it. She reframed it:
“Think about the Winter Olympics… 90% of what went into deciding who the winner was happens before they cross the starting line. I want you to encourage people to think about Government Contracting as the business Olympics—so much of the effort, the work, the training, the preparation happens before the RFP drops.”
This isn’t about corruption. It’s about behavioral readiness.
Judy explains what the 2005 audience member and Edward (2025) both experienced: “If you don’t know the buyer, the incumbent, the budget, the history, and the first time you hear about an opportunity is electronically with less than 30 days to go—you’re not doing marketing. You’re doing market research.”
The Layer 2 gap persists on BOTH sides:
Vendors assume: Responding to RFP = opportunity
Government assumes: Posting RFP = fair process
Reality: 90% of success factors exist BEFORE the formal process begins
Her assessment of procurement automation?
“Just because you get an automated notice doesn’t mean if that’s the first time you hear about it you haven’t missed the boat… automating a process is an illusion to say it’s been made universally accessible. This is still the ultimate relationship market.”
Twenty years after “they don’t do dick,” the pattern remains—validated by someone who spent 15 years inside government and 22 years helping vendors navigate it.
Watch the full interview – Over 20,000 views.
Share this:
Related