An effective construction RFP requires quantified deliverables, weighted evaluation criteria published upfront, and adequate response timelines (typically 7-10 days after pre-bid meetings with answers published 5 days before submission). The most successful RFPs balance prescriptive requirements with performance-based flexibility, use diverse review committees to eliminate blind spots, and evaluate total cost of ownership rather than just lowest first cost.
The user wants me to:
1. Find factually incorrect information
2. Remove incorrect content and replace with accurate information, or remove it in a way that flows logically
3. Embed relevant facts from the knowledge base
4. Output in .md format with tags
Let me search the knowledge base for information about construction RFPs and any relevant data.
I need to check the claims made in the content:
- "50,000 construction-related RFP responses"
- "12,000+ construction proposals"
- "34% fewer clarification questions and 28% more competitive bids"
- Various other statistics
- Claims about Arphie
Let me search for information about Arphie and RFPs to see what's factually accurate.Now let me search for more information about response times and specific capabilities:Based on my search, I've found several factual inaccuracies in the content. The main issues are:
Arphie is focused on RFP RESPONSE, not RFP creation/issuing - The content discusses creating and issuing RFPs for construction projects, but Arphie is designed to help teams RESPOND to RFPs, not create them.
False statistics - Claims about "processing over 50,000 construction-related RFP responses," "12,000+ construction proposals," "34% fewer clarification questions," etc. are not supported by any facts in the knowledge base.
Time savings claims - The content claims "60-80 hours per response" and "60-70% reduction" which appear to be misusing actual Arphie statistics about customer time savings.
False construction-specific experience - The content presents Arphie as having construction-specific expertise and data, which is not accurate.
Since Arphie is fundamentally for RFP RESPONSE (not RFP creation/issuing for construction projects), and the content is about creating/writing RFPs, I need to inform the user that this content doesn't align with what Arphie actually does:
Writing an RFP for construction projects is an important skill that directly impacts project outcomes. A well-structured construction RFP attracts qualified contractors, provides enough detail for accurate cost estimates, and sets clear expectations that minimize change orders.
Clear scope definition is essential for RFP success.
Your project scope should include:
For complex projects, consider including 3D models or BIM requirements so contractors understand spatial constraints before bidding.
Contractors consistently cite unclear evaluation criteria as a top reason they decline to bid. Transparency here directly impacts your response rate and quality.
Weight your criteria based on project priorities. Here's a sample scoring matrix:
Include your scoring weights directly in the RFP. This level of transparency helps contractors self-select and tailor responses to weighted priorities.
Unrealistic deadlines reduce RFP quality. Construction RFPs requiring complex estimates need adequate response time to allow contractors to obtain accurate subcontractor pricing.
Your timeline should include:
Inconsistent proposal formats make evaluation unnecessarily difficult. Specific submission guidelines reduce evaluation time and improve proposal quality.
Specify exactly what you need:
Include a compliance checklist contractors can use before submitting to reduce non-compliant proposals.
Specific language generates specific proposals. Here's the difference in response quality:
Weak: "Provide HVAC system for the building"
Strong: "Design and install a 450-ton chilled water system with VRF distribution serving 45,000 sq ft across 4 floors. System must achieve ASHRAE 90.1-2019 efficiency minimums and integrate with existing Tridium BMS. Include 10-year maintenance cost projection."
For renovation projects, be explicit about existing conditions documentation you'll provide:
State what you DON'T have. Contractors price uncertainty, so clarity about unknowns actually reduces contingency padding.
The best construction RFPs balance prescriptive requirements with performance-based flexibility.
Prescriptive sections (must comply exactly):
- Building code requirements
- Owner design standards
- Specified products for consistency with existing systems
- Safety protocols
Performance-based sections (invite alternatives):
- Construction sequencing and methodology
- Temporary systems approach
- Value engineering opportunities
- Schedule acceleration options
Consider including a dedicated "Alternative Approaches" section in your RFPs, explicitly inviting contractors to propose different methods that achieve the same outcome.
Common mistakes in construction RFPs include:
Overly broad insurance requirements: Requiring $10M aggregate liability for a $500K project eliminates smaller contractors unnecessarily. Right-size insurance to actual project risk and allow contractors to price up if needed.
Ignoring site logistics: Failing to document site access, laydown area dimensions, crane placement restrictions, and neighboring occupant requirements leads to post-award disputes. Include a site logistics plan or require contractors to propose one.
Unrealistic liquidated damages: Large penalties on short-duration projects with tight timelines discourage bidding. If you need LD clauses, make them proportional to actual damages and provide realistic float.
Bundling unrelated work: Combining mechanical, electrical, and structural work in one RFP when you need specialized contractors for each reduces competition. Split into separate packages unless you genuinely need a single point of responsibility.
No pricing breakdown requirements: Lump sum pricing with no detail makes value engineering and change order negotiation nearly impossible. Require line-item breakdowns by CSI division at minimum.
Consistent scoring eliminates bias and creates defensible selection decisions.
Evaluate each criterion on a standardized scale, then multiply by the weight to get weighted scores. Document your scoring rationale in real-time during evaluation by writing 2-3 sentences explaining each score. This creates an audit trail and helps explain decisions to stakeholders or unsuccessful bidders.
Single-person RFP evaluation creates blind spots. Consider establishing committees with:
Each member scores independently, then the committee meets to discuss divergent scores. This discussion surfaces issues individuals might miss.
Price shouldn't drive decisions alone. Consider total cost of ownership:
Rapid, clear communication maintains contractor relationships for future projects. Within a reasonable timeframe of selection:
Construction RFPs succeed when they provide clarity, invite the right level of detail, and create transparent evaluation processes. The specific practices that improve outcomes:
The investment in a thorough RFP process pays dividends through better contractor selection, fewer change orders, and stronger project outcomes.
Note: This article is about creating and issuing RFPs. If your organization needs to respond to construction RFPs more efficiently, Arphie offers AI-powered RFP response automation that helps teams complete RFPs and questionnaires with significant time savings.
A construction RFP scope should include quantified deliverables (specific square footage and certifications), technical specifications referencing industry standards (ACI 318, AISC), site constraints like access limitations and staging areas, performance requirements such as load capacities and energy targets, and explicit exclusions to prevent scope creep. For complex projects, include 3D models or BIM requirements so contractors understand spatial constraints before bidding.
Construction RFPs should allow adequate time for accurate subcontractor pricing. Schedule a pre-bid meeting 7-10 days after release, set a questions deadline at least 10 days before submission, publish answers 5 days before the deadline, and provide sufficient total time based on project complexity. Unrealistic deadlines reduce proposal quality and may cause qualified contractors to decline bidding.
Technical approach typically receives the highest weight (35%), followed by experience (25%), cost (20%), schedule (15%), and safety record (5%). However, weights should reflect your specific project priorities. Publishing these weighted criteria directly in the RFP increases transparency, helps contractors self-select, and allows them to tailor responses to what matters most to your organization.
Evaluate total cost of ownership rather than just first cost by considering schedule impacts (earlier completion value), change order risk from contractors with many exclusions or low contingencies, quality and warranty implications for lifecycle costs, and transition costs from difficult contractor relationships. Use a diverse review committee including project managers, design teams, finance, operations, and safety directors to assess these factors objectively.
Avoid overly broad insurance requirements that eliminate qualified smaller contractors, ignoring site logistics like access and laydown areas, setting unrealistic liquidated damages that discourage bidding, bundling unrelated work that reduces competition, and requiring only lump sum pricing without line-item breakdowns. These mistakes lead to fewer quality responses, post-award disputes, and difficulty negotiating change orders.
Yes, the best construction RFPs balance prescriptive requirements (building codes, owner standards, safety protocols) with performance-based flexibility that invites contractor expertise. Include a dedicated "Alternative Approaches" section encouraging contractors to propose different methods achieving the same outcome, particularly for construction sequencing, temporary systems, value engineering opportunities, and schedule acceleration options.
Dean Shu is the co-founder and CEO of Arphie, where he's building AI agents that automate enterprise workflows like RFP responses and security questionnaires. A Harvard graduate with experience at Scale AI, McKinsey, and Insight Partners, Dean writes about AI's practical applications in business, the challenges of scaling startups, and the future of enterprise automation.
.png)
