The RFP Conundrum: Why 'Competitive Bidding' Often Leads to Inferior Results

You have a global qualitative research project. You've sent out your RFP to a dozen vendors. The bids come flooding back, prices vary wildly, and naturally, you're drawn to the lowest number on the spreadsheet. After all, saving budget is a win, right?

Not quite.

The reality of competitive "shotgun" bidding, where RFPs get blasted to anyone with a website and a contact form, is that it often sets projects up for failure from the start. When procurement departments remove themselves from the research outcomes and focus solely on finding the lowest bidder, they're playing a dangerous game. The problem isn't with sending RFPs; it's with making decisions based purely on price rather than value, experience, and partnership potential.

What Competitive Bidding Does to Qualitative Research Results

A large global company hands off vendor selection to a procurement team overseas. They Google "qualitative research recruitment" and send the same RFP to 15 different firms they've never worked with before. No relationship. No vetting. No understanding of capabilities or track record. The bids come back, and the lowest price wins. But what happens next reveals the real cost of this approach.

The red flags start appearing almost immediately. You get a different project manager every time, which means no consistency, no relationship, and no institutional knowledge of your needs. Recruitment starts strong but quickly dies down, leaving quotas unfilled. The vendor stops communicating proactively, and suddenly you're the one chasing them for updates. Quality becomes questionable as you start wondering whether these are really the right respondents or just warm bodies to fill quotas.

A recent B2B study illustrates this problem perfectly. The research director awarded the project to a vendor who came in $400 per recruit cheaper than her trusted partner. She got some recruits initially, but momentum stalled. Eventually, she had to bring us in as her reliable vendor to complete the project at a fair price, but by then she'd already committed to a price with her client. The budget shortfall came out of her margin.

When end-clients do this type of work for themselves, they may appear to have a great win, even when the recruiting gets harder. If the research operations vendor promised a price that was too good to be true, chances are it was. The budget shortfall will come out of their margin. But even if the end client feels protected in this scenario, the quality of the work is most likely going to suffer. 

Instead, let’ think about how excellent planning for your global qualitative fieldwork can help you succeed. Here we offer four considerations to help you achieve optimal outcomes every time!

• Vet Your Vendors Before You Need Them

Don't wait until you have a project with a tight deadline to start looking for partners. The right approach is to build relationships with research vendors before you have work to send them. Have conversations about what they can do and where they excel, their experience with your specific methodology and target audiences, their track record in the regions where you conduct research, and which services they provide directly versus what they outsource and to whom. When you have trusted, vetted partners in your network, you're not gambling with your project outcomes. You know who can deliver what, and you can make informed decisions about which partner is the right fit for each unique project.

• Prioritize Communication and Transparency Over Price

The biggest red flag when evaluating bids is a vendor that asks no questions. If someone shoots back a quote in 15 minutes without asking a single clarifying question about your target audience, methodology, timing, or project goals, that's a warning sign. A quality partner needs to understand your project before they can accurately price it or commit to deliverables.

Look for vendors who insist on kickoff calls to align on expectations, ask detailed questions about your screener criteria, quotas, and timeline, explain their recruitment strategy and backup plans, provide transparency about where they'll source respondents, and proactively communicate challenges and solutions. When vendors explain their approach on how they'll hit their database first, then leverage social media recruitment, and which backup partners they have in specific regions, you know there's a real plan in place. You're not dealing with someone who will panic when the first approach doesn't work.

• Recognize the Value of Experience and Institutional Knowledge

Years of expertise translate into something invaluable, which is the ability to anticipate problems before they happen. An experienced research partner has already failed in all the ways a project can fail. They know the pitfalls, the bottlenecks, the cultural considerations, and the logistical challenges. This expertise shows up first in anticipatory planning, where experienced partners aren't just thinking about how to fill a recruit but considering every problem that might arise and accounting for it from the bidding stage. They have backup vendors already identified, alternative recruitment strategies mapped out, and contingency plans ready before fieldwork even begins.

• Match the Scope of Your Work to the Knowledge of Your Vendors

Global research experience makes an enormous difference in project outcomes. Seasoned partners know that in France, you can't just hire a recruiter because they'll want to handle moderation too. They know that college students are difficult to recruit in Japan and that asking which college they attend is considered private information. This kind of cultural and operational intelligence can't be Googled or improvised. It comes from years of boots-on-the-ground experience.

Project management expertise extends across all touchpoints. From survey programming to venue booking, equipment needs, transcription, and field management, experienced partners handle every aspect so it flows seamlessly. They're already thinking about whether you'll need food at the focus group facility, what equipment will be required in the room, how many people will be needed on each corner for intercept interviews, and whether the store will ask you to move locations. Quality control represents perhaps the most critical distinction, as experienced partners understand the difference between filling quotas and delivering quality respondents who provide meaningful insights. They know that respondents recruited from online panels for quantitative work don't translate well to qualitative studies. They recognize when recruitment is coming from the right sources and when corners are being cut.

When problems arise (and they will), experienced partners don't just react. They've already anticipated the issue and have solutions ready to implement. This level of preparation is what separates a true partner from a vendor simply chasing the next project.

The True Cost of "Cheap"

When you base decisions solely on the lowest bid, you end up paying more in the long run. Consider what happens when a seemingly cheaper vendor can't deliver. The research professional has to bring in a trusted partner mid-project, but has already locked in pricing with the client based on the original low bid. The margin loss becomes her responsibility. Beyond the financial hit, there's the cost of time delays that push back your entire research timeline and compress your analysis window. Compromised quality leads to insights you can't trust or decisions based on flawed data. Damaged client relationships result when you can't deliver what you promised. Opportunity costs mount when your team spends time firefighting instead of analyzing and strategizing.

The race to the bottom creates an unsustainable model where someone has to pay for the difference, and it's usually quality. When established firms undercut prices dramatically to win bids, you can't charge $100 per recruit and maintain the level of staff and recruiting effort that delivers stellar respondents. The overhead has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is typically corners being cut in the recruitment process, respondent screening, or project management. If a bid seems too good to be true, it probably is.

The vendors who consistently deliver quality, who complete 100% of difficult recruits, and who secure respondents who provide genuine insights are worth their price. They're not the cheapest, but they deliver value that budget vendors simply can't match.

The Bottom Line

Competitive bidding has its place, but only when you're comparing qualified, vetted partners with proven track records in your specific research needs. When you reduce vendor selection to a pure price competition with firms you've never worked with, you're setting yourself up for the kind of problems that cost more than you saved. The solution is to build relationships before you need them, vet your vendors, value communication and transparency, and recognize that experience and expertise command appropriate pricing. Remember that in research, as in most things, you get what you pay for. You need to balance the budget, but keep the “quality” in your qualitative research! 

Your cheapest bid is rarely your best value. Choose partners, not vendors. Your research outcomes depend on it.

Contact Us