RFPs A Lose/Lose/Lose Proposition?

Yes, they meet their intended purpose of legal compliance with procurement regulations AND they are extremely tough to deliver to the client's expectations.  

Unfortunately in the contractual climate we have made for ourselves in the U.S. RFPs are probably here to stay.  They can be a win/win.  

If there is an Owner, Arch/Engineer team, GC and an owner's rep firm then accountability and compliance is spread out and even though it can take months to get a decision there seems to be more latitude in scope changes.

RFPs can also work if you fit them to the type of project and contractor.  There is not a one size fits all project nor one size fits all contractor.  Some contractors just want to put a number to a set of plans and specs then only perform to that exact scope.  Some contractors want to be part of the solution and provide design/build services.  The same is true for clients.  Some want collaboration and some want cookie cutter projects.  

An RFP can be win/win when you qualify your scope and understand the risk vs reward in responding.  There are many smart and dedicated people working on all aspects of the RFP process.  My best advice is pick the RFP wisely, develop relationships with every RFP team you work with and find at least one positive result regardless if the PO comes or not.  

Generally not a big fan of "Request For" anything. Seems to me the goal is either find the lowest cost or find free information rather than find best value or most suitable solution to the problem at hand. 

Only design/build negotiated projects enables any sort of value proposition for the application. That is generally the only time the user actually gets the performance they want and/or need.

There are significant differences (in US anyway) between Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Quote (RFQ) and Request for Information (RFI). I am not well versed enough to distinguish formally here but I think it's worth having someone who knows comment on the differences. These "RFs" are many times confused. Any business managers or lawyers around? 

This needs a vote.  I solidly side with the lose/lose/lose critique.  There is no good that comes from a feeding frenzy.

I respond to about 3 RPFs per month.  I think all the "filler" response requirements are useless and take up valuable time that I could be using to draft a responsible design and proposal.  Instead of all respondents submitting all the background data, CVs, insurance papers, client references, etc., narrow the candidates down to 3 or so based on price and solution, and then have them submit all the other stuff that I'm betting no one reads anyway.

While we don't see formal RFP's we do get a lot of calls for surveillance proposals. We need cameras here, here and here, please submit a quote and we'll send to management...

My marketing person and I were just talking about this today. We lose a large portion of bids and I think it's because we are not able to develop a relationship and show our expertise. A large portion of bids where we work with decision makers we win. Not because I am so slick, but because I can show we know what we are doing. I also think we lose to low ballers who don't include UPS, managed switches etc.

Not quite the same as an RFP but similar in the fact that no relationship is built.

So I say lose/lose because the client does not know what they are getting/losing and it's a lot of wasted time for the integrator.