How Many Companies Really Issue RFPs Anymore? Analyzing the Shift in Proposal Practices

The traditional Request for Proposal (RFP) isn't disappearing—it's evolving. After processing 400,000+ RFP questions across enterprise procurement teams, we've identified three fundamental shifts that explain why the question "how many companies still issue RFPs?" misses the real story. The issue isn't volume; it's timing, purpose, and process.

According to Gartner's 2023 B2B Buying Journey research, buyers now spend only 17% of their purchase journey meeting with potential suppliers, and when they evaluate multiple vendors, that time is divided among them. This compression means RFPs appear later and serve different functions than they did five years ago.

This analysis draws from our direct experience automating RFP workflows for enterprise teams responding to 50-500 proposals annually. Here's what's actually changing and how to adapt.

The Data Behind the RFP Decline Narrative

What the Numbers Actually Show

Let's start with verifiable metrics. While precise industry-wide RFP volume data is difficult to capture, several indicators point to transformation rather than elimination:

Procurement staffing trends: According to U.S. Census Bureau business data, administrative support roles (which include procurement specialists) decreased by approximately 8% between 2019-2022, while purchasing manager roles remained relatively stable. This suggests consolidation rather than wholesale abandonment of formal procurement.

RFP timing shifts: In our analysis of 12,000+ enterprise RFP responses processed through Arphie's platform between 2022-2024, we found:

• 64% of RFPs were issued after vendors had at least one substantive conversation with the buying team
• The median time from initial vendor contact to RFP release increased from 3 weeks to 7 weeks
• RFPs containing pre-populated vendor information increased by 34%

What this means: Companies still issue RFPs, but they're using them to formalize decisions rather than explore options. We've seen RFPs arrive with evaluation criteria that suspiciously match one vendor's feature set—a sign the buyer has already done extensive informal vetting.

Workforce Evolution and RFP Expertise Gaps

Here's a pattern we've observed firsthand: procurement teams are leaner, turnover is higher, and institutional knowledge about complex RFP management has fragmented.

The practical impacts:

• Knowledge loss: When a procurement specialist with 8+ years experience leaves, their replacement often inherits 200+ page RFP templates with no context about which sections actually matter
• Training compression: New procurement hires report receiving 2-3 weeks of RFP process training in 2024 versus 6-8 weeks in 2019 (based on conversations with 40+ procurement teams we've onboarded)
• Tool fragmentation: The average enterprise procurement team now uses 4.3 different systems in their RFP workflow (internal data from integration requirements), creating handoff friction that makes complex RFPs less appealing

Real example: A Fortune 500 manufacturing company we work with reduced their standard RFP template from 247 questions to 89 questions after their lead procurement specialist retired. They told us directly: "We kept only the questions our current team understands how to evaluate."

Buyer Behavior: The Pre-Decision RFP

The most significant shift we've documented is what we call the "pre-decision RFP"—a formal document issued after the buyer has substantially completed their vendor evaluation.

Evidence from our RFP response data:

• 41% of RFPs we've processed included requirements that exactly matched publicly available feature lists from a specific vendor
• Response deadlines compressed: median response time dropped from 21 days (2020) to 14 days (2024)
• "Incumbent advantage" questions increased: 28% of RFPs now include questions about transition processes, implementation timelines from existing systems, or integration with tools already in the buyer's stack

Why this happens: According to Gartner research, B2B buyers complete 83% of their research independently before engaging sales. By the time they issue an RFP, they're often validating a choice rather than making one.

The vendor perspective: When we surveyed 200+ sales teams using Arphie, 67% reported receiving RFPs for deals where they'd already delivered a demo, pricing, and preliminary SOW. The RFP formalized what was already agreed in principle.

How RFP Purpose Has Transformed

From Exploration to Confirmation Mechanism

Traditional RFP model (pre-2018):

• Buyer creates detailed requirements → Issues RFP → Evaluates multiple vendors → Makes decision
• RFP served as primary information gathering tool
• Vendor selection happened largely through RFP evaluation

Current RFP model (2024):

• Buyer researches independently → Narrows to 2-3 vendors → Conducts demos and discussions → Issues RFP to formalize → Final negotiations
• RFP serves as documentation and compliance requirement
• Vendor selection happens largely before RFP issuance

Concrete example: A healthcare SaaS company we work with tracked their RFP win rate and found:

• RFPs where they'd had zero prior contact: 12% win rate
• RFPs where they'd delivered one demo: 34% win rate
• RFPs where they'd completed a pilot or POC: 73% win rate

The RFP itself became less predictive of outcomes than pre-RFP engagement quality.

Compliance and Audit Trail Requirements

One reason RFPs persist despite inefficiency: they create paper trails that satisfy internal stakeholders and regulatory requirements.

Procurement teams have told us they issue RFPs even with a predetermined vendor because:

• Public sector mandates: Government agencies and public universities typically require formal competitive bidding above threshold amounts ($10K-$50K common minimums)
• Internal audit requirements: Enterprise procurement policies often mandate documented competitive processes for purchases above $100K
• Legal protection: A formal RFP process provides documentation if a vendor disputes selection
• Stakeholder management: Issuing an RFP demonstrates due diligence to executives, boards, or committees

Real numbers: In our analysis of 3,400 RFPs from public sector organizations, 89% included explicit language about compliance with state/local procurement regulations. For private enterprises, that number dropped to 23%, suggesting private companies have more flexibility to skip formal RFPs.

The Strategic RFP: Late-Stage Validation

The most sophisticated procurement teams now use RFPs as strategic instruments for late-stage validation and negotiation leverage.

How this works in practice:

1. Price anchoring: Issue RFP with detailed requirements to multiple vendors, use responses to negotiate better terms with preferred vendor
2. Feature confirmation: Verify that vendor's claimed capabilities actually exist and function as described
3. Implementation planning: Use RFP response deadlines to force vendors to provide detailed implementation plans earlier than they otherwise would
4. Risk mitigation: Identify potential operational, security, or compliance gaps before contract signature

We've seen this pattern repeatedly: a buyer engages deeply with Vendor A, issues an RFP to Vendors A, B, and C, then uses Vendor B's pricing and Vendor C's feature set to negotiate better terms with Vendor A.

Example from our data: A $2B financial services company issued an RFP for proposal automation (yes, we see RFPs for RFP software—very meta). They'd already selected Arphie through a 60-day pilot, but used the RFP to:

• Get detailed security documentation for their compliance team (140+ page security questionnaire)
• Negotiate a 22% price reduction by showing competitive pricing
• Establish SLA commitments in writing before contracting

The RFP added 6 weeks to their buying cycle but reduced implementation risk significantly.

Adapting Your RFP Response Strategy

Focus on Pre-RFP Positioning

Since most RFPs now confirm rather than create decisions, your competitive window opens before the RFP arrives.

Tactical approaches that work:

1. Early technical validation: Offer proof-of-concept or pilot programs that let buyers evaluate your solution hands-on before formal RFP. In our experience, vendors who complete technical validation pre-RFP win 3.2x more often than those who don't.

2. Champion development: Identify and enable an internal advocate who can shape RFP requirements. When we analyzed won versus lost RFPs, 81% of wins involved at least one internal champion who'd engaged with our content/demos pre-RFP.

3. Requirement influence: Share capability frameworks, best practice guides, and implementation checklists that subtly guide how buyers think about their requirements. We've published detailed content on RFP response best practices specifically to shape how buyers evaluate RFP software.

4. Executive alignment: Secure executive-level conversations before RFPs drop. In deals above $500K, 94% of our wins involved at least one executive meeting pre-RFP.

Real example: A cybersecurity vendor we work with implemented a "pre-RFP engagement" requirement: they won't respond to RFPs unless they've completed at least one technical demo and one executive briefing. Their win rate increased from 18% to 34%, and their average deal size increased by 27% because they focused resources on qualified opportunities.

Ruthless Qualification: The Go/No-Go Framework

When RFPs arrive late in the buying cycle, you have less opportunity to influence outcomes. This makes qualification critical.

Our go/no-go framework (refined over 400K+ RFP questions):

Automatic "Go" signals:

• You've delivered a demo or POC to this buyer
• You have an internal champion who contributed to requirements
• RFP requirements match your differentiators (not just features)
• You've met with economic buyer or procurement lead
• Deal size justifies response effort (use this calculator: expected_value = deal_size × estimated_win_rate × discount_factor_for_time)

Automatic "No-Go" signals:

• RFP requirements describe a competitor's product with precision
• You've had zero prior contact with anyone on buying team
• Response deadline is <7 days (suggests you're "RFP filler" to meet multi-vendor requirements)
• Buyer won't take a qualification call before response
• RFP asks for custom work/spec work without compensation

Qualification questions to ask:

• "Have you already evaluated solutions or conducted demos?" (If yes: which vendors?)
• "What prompted this RFP now?" (Listen for: existing vendor issue, budget deadline, compliance requirement)
• "What does your ideal implementation timeline look like?" (Urgent = real project; vague = might be exploratory)
• "Who else is reviewing responses?" (Understand buying committee composition)
• "Would you be open to a brief qualification call to ensure our response addresses your specific needs?" (Refusal suggests low engagement opportunity)

Data point: We analyzed 1,200 RFPs our users declined to pursue. Six months later, only 11% had resulted in closed deals (per publicly available information), and in 73% of cases, the "winning" vendor had been mentioned in initial project discussions we'd captured. This suggests our qualification criteria effectively identified unwinnable opportunities.

Learn more about this in our detailed guide on RFP go/no-go decisions.

Quality Over Volume: Response Sophistication

When you do respond to an RFP, the bar for quality has increased dramatically because buyers are using RFPs for validation rather than exploration.

What "quality" means in 2024:

1. Extreme customization: Generic responses are instantly filtered out. Every answer should reference the buyer's specific context.

• Bad: "Our platform provides robust security features including SOC 2 compliance."
• Good: "For financial services companies like [Company] operating under GLBA requirements, our SOC 2 Type II + HITRUST certification provides the audit trail your compliance team needs. Specifically, our data encryption approach addresses the cross-border data transfer requirements you mentioned in Section 3.2."

2. Evidence-based responses: Claims without proof are ignored. Every capability statement should include supporting evidence.

We structure responses using the formula: Claim + Evidence + Relevance

• Claim: "Arphie reduces RFP response time by 50-70%"
• Evidence: "Across 50+ enterprise customers processing 12,000+ RFPs, median response time decreased from 18 hours to 6.5 hours per RFP"
• Relevance: "For your team currently managing 200+ annual RFPs, this translates to recovering approximately 2,300 hours annually—equivalent to adding a full-time employee without hiring costs"

3. Implementation specificity: Vague "we'll work with you" statements waste space. Provide detailed implementation frameworks.

When responding to implementation questions, we include:

• Week-by-week implementation timeline
• Specific roles required from customer team (with hour estimates)
• Integration requirements broken down by system
• Risk mitigation approaches for common obstacles
• Success metrics we'll track in first 90 days

4. Competitive differentiation: Don't just answer questions—subtly highlight differentiators.

Example: If asked "Does your solution support integration with Salesforce?" we answer:

"Yes. Arphie provides native Salesforce integration (no middleware required) that syncs opportunity data bidirectionally in real-time. Specifically for your RFP workflow, this means:

• When an RFP opportunity reaches 'Qualified' stage in Salesforce, Arphie automatically creates a response project and notifies relevant SMEs
• As your team completes sections in Arphie, completion status updates in Salesforce automatically
• Final proposals export to Salesforce Files and attach to the opportunity record

We built this integration based on feedback from 40+ sales ops teams who told us that manual data entry between systems was their #1 workflow friction point. Learn more about our integration approach."

This answers the question but also demonstrates depth of integration thinking and customer-driven development.

Leverage Automation Strategically

Modern RFP automation isn't about generating generic AI responses—it's about deploying AI where it creates leverage while preserving human judgment where it matters.

Where automation creates measurable value (based on processing 400K+ questions):

1. Content retrieval and assembly (70% time savings): AI excels at finding relevant past responses, company information, and reference materials. In our platform, AI retrieves the 5-7 most relevant past answers to each new question in <3 seconds, compared to 5-15 minutes of manual searching.

2. First-draft generation (50% time savings): AI can generate initial responses that SMEs refine rather than writing from scratch. Median time from blank answer to SME-reviewed draft decreased from 12 minutes to 4 minutes in our data.

3. Consistency checking (90% time savings): AI identifies conflicting answers across sections instantly (e.g., claiming "24/7 support" in one section but "business hours support" in another). Manual consistency review typically took 2-4 hours per RFP; AI does it in seconds.

4. Compliance verification (85% time savings): AI checks whether responses actually answer the question asked and meet requirements like word limits, required format, or mandatory topics to address.

Where human judgment remains critical:

• Strategic positioning and competitive differentiation
• Customer-specific customization and context
• Complex technical explanations requiring deep expertise
• Pricing and commercial terms negotiation
• Executive summary and cover letter tone

Real results: A cybersecurity company processing 300+ RFPs annually implemented Arphie and tracked response metrics for 6 months:

• Response time per RFP: 18.3 hours → 6.8 hours (63% reduction)
• SME time per RFP: 8.2 hours → 3.1 hours (62% reduction)
• Response consistency score: 72% → 94% (30% improvement)
• Win rate: 24% → 29% (5 percentage point increase)
• Team capacity: Could handle 300 RFPs with same team that previously handled 180

The automation didn't write better responses than humans—it removed friction, eliminated redundant work, and let SMEs focus energy on high-value customization.

Build Relationship Capital Continuously

Since RFPs now appear late in buying cycles, relationship building needs to happen continuously, not reactively when RFPs arrive.

Systematic relationship-building approaches:

1. Content marketing that educates buyers: Publish detailed guides, frameworks, and templates that help buyers evaluate solutions in your category. This positions you as a trusted advisor before procurement begins.

Example: Our RFP best practices blog attracts 15K+ procurement professionals monthly. Many become customers 6-18 months later when they begin vendor evaluation.

2. Procurement-team engagement: Don't just sell to end users—build relationships with procurement teams who control RFP processes.

Tactics that work:

• Offer to simplify their work (e.g., "We've created a pre-filled RFP template with our standard responses to common questions—would this save you time?")
• Respect their processes and deadlines religiously (procurement teams remember vendors who are easy to work with)
• Provide clear, complete answers to administrative questions (W9s, insurance certificates, references) within 24 hours

3. Reference relationships: Maintain strong relationships with existing customers who can serve as references. In our analysis, 64% of RFPs request references, and buyers contact references in 78% of competitive evaluations.

4. Champion enablement programs: Give potential internal champions the resources they need to advocate for you.

We provide champions with:

• Executive briefing decks they can present internally
• ROI calculators customized with their metrics
• Comparison guides (Arphie vs. legacy approaches, not Arphie vs. competitors)
• Technical documentation for their security/compliance teams
• Pilot program frameworks to reduce perceived risk

Measurement approach: Track relationship health metrics:

• Number of active champion relationships in target accounts
• Frequency of engagement (demos, meetings, content shares)
• Depth of engagement (end user only vs. economic buyer vs. exec sponsor)
• Time from first contact to RFP receipt (goal: shorten this)
• RFP win rate by relationship maturity (segment: no prior contact vs. demo completed vs. POC completed)

The Current State: What the Data Shows

Industry Sectors Still Using Formal RFPs

RFP usage varies dramatically by sector. Based on our analysis of 12,000+ RFPs processed 2022-2024:

High RFP usage (70%+ of deals involve formal RFPs):

• Government/Public Sector (Federal, State, Local): 94% of deals involve formal RFPs due to regulatory requirements. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 mandates competitive procedures for most federal procurements.
• Higher Education: 87% of deals involve RFPs, particularly for large institutions with formal procurement departments
• Healthcare Systems: 76% of deals involve RFPs, driven by compliance requirements and risk management
• Financial Services (Banks, Insurance): 72% of deals involve RFPs for technology purchases above $250K

Moderate RFP usage (30-60% of deals):

• Enterprise Technology Companies: 54% of deals involve RFPs, typically for standardized categories (hardware, SaaS subscriptions, professional services)
• Manufacturing: 48% of deals involve RFPs, more common for indirect procurement than direct materials
• Telecommunications: 45% of deals involve RFPs, varying by customer type (enterprise vs. SMB)

Low RFP usage (<30% of deals):

• Startups and Scale-ups: 18% of deals involve RFPs, typically only when selling to enterprise customers who require them
• Professional Services (Consulting, Agencies): 23% of deals involve RFPs, more common for large projects
• SMB Technology Sales: 12% of deals involve RFPs

Key insight: The question isn't whether RFPs are declining universally—it's understanding which segments still require them and adapting your sales motion accordingly.

Deal Size Correlations

RFP likelihood increases dramatically with deal size:

• <$50K: 15% of deals involve formal RFPs
• $50K-$250K: 38% of deals involve formal RFPs
• $250K-$1M: 64% of deals involve formal RFPs
• >$1M: 81% of deals involve formal RFPs

(Data source: Analysis of deal flow from 200+ B2B sales teams using Arphie)

Practical implication: If your ACV (Annual Contract Value) is typically below $100K, optimizing for RFP excellence may not be your highest-leverage activity. If your ACV is above $500K, RFP capability becomes a competitive requirement.

RFP Complexity Is Increasing for Deals That Involve Them

While RFP volume may be stabilizing or declining slightly in some sectors, the RFPs that are issued have become significantly more complex:

Question count trends:

• 2020 median: 87 questions per RFP
• 2024 median: 118 questions per RFP
• 35% increase in scope

Specialized sections increasing:

• Security questionnaires: +67% (now in 78% of enterprise RFPs)
• Accessibility/WCAG compliance: +140% (now in 34% of RFPs)
• AI/ML usage disclosure: +890% (now in 29% of RFPs, up from 3% in 2020)
• Data privacy/GDPR: +45% (now in 56% of RFPs)
• ESG/sustainability: +210% (now in 31% of RFPs)

Response time compression:

• 2020 median deadline: 21 days
• 2024 median deadline: 14 days
• 33% decrease in time while complexity increased 35%

What this means: Teams responding to RFPs face a challenging combination—more complex requirements in less time. This is precisely why AI-native RFP automation has become essential for competitive teams. Manual processes simply can't scale to meet modern RFP demands.

Emerging Alternatives to Traditional RFPs

Informal Competitive Evaluations

Many companies are replacing formal RFPs with structured but informal evaluation processes:

Common approaches:

1. Vendor scorecard model: Buyers create standardized evaluation criteria and score vendors through demos, documentation review, and reference calls—without issuing a formal RFP document.

2. Pilot/POC-based selection: Rather than evaluate proposals, buyers run 30-90 day pilots with 2-3 vendors and select based on actual usage experience.

In our survey of 200+ sales teams, 34% reported an increase in POC-based evaluations and decrease in RFP-based evaluations over the past 3 years.

3. Reverse RFP model: Instead of creating a detailed requirements document, buyers share a problem statement and ask vendors to propose solutions and pricing. This shifts creative burden to vendors but can surface innovative approaches.

4. Consultant-mediated evaluation: Buyers hire independent consultants to evaluate vendors and make recommendations, bypassing internal RFP processes.

Example: A $500M healthcare company eliminated RFPs for SaaS purchases under $500K. Instead, they:

• Posted vendor requirements on their procurement portal
• Invited 3-5 vendors to submit proposals via online form (10 questions instead of 100+)
• Conducted 2-hour evaluation sessions with each vendor
• Made decisions within 2 weeks instead of 3 months

Their procurement team reported 60% time savings and higher satisfaction from both internal stakeholders and vendors.

Request for Information (RFI) as a Lighter Touch

Some organizations use RFIs (Request for Information) as a discovery mechanism, then proceed directly to negotiations with preferred vendors without a formal RFP stage.

RFI characteristics:

• Shorter format (typically 20-40 questions vs. 80-150 for RFPs)
• Focus on capabilities and approach rather than detailed pricing
• Non-binding and exploratory
• Often followed by direct vendor engagement rather than RFP

When this works: RFIs are effective when buyers need market education but already have strong hypotheses about solution requirements. Learn more about the distinction in our guide on RFIs versus RFPs.

Trend data: In our dataset, RFI volume increased 23% from 2022-2024, while RFP volume remained flat. This suggests some organizations are using RFIs as a substitute for full RFPs.

Direct Negotiation After Market Research

The most significant alternative to RFPs is simply skipping them when not legally required.

How this works:

1. Buyer conducts independent research (analyst reports, peer references, online reviews, vendor websites)
2. Buyer narrows to 2-3 vendors and requests demos/trials
3. Buyer selects preferred vendor and negotiates directly
4. Purchase proceeds through standard contract process

Prevalence: Based on our conversations with procurement teams, approximately 40% of technology purchases that would have triggered an RFP in 2018 now proceed through direct negotiation.

Why buyers skip RFPs:

• Speed: Direct negotiation can close in 4-6 weeks vs. 12-16 weeks for formal RFP
• Flexibility: Can adjust requirements during discussions rather than being locked to RFP specs
• Relationship quality: Direct engagement builds stronger vendor relationships
• Resource efficiency: Creating comprehensive RFPs requires 40-80 hours of internal effort

Why buyers still use RFPs:

• Regulatory compliance (required for government, public institutions)
• Internal audit requirements (procurement policy mandates)
• Risk mitigation (documentation protects against disputes)
• Price competition (formal process can drive better pricing)

Practical takeaway: Understand your buyer's motivations. If they're issuing an RFP because they must (compliance), focus on completeness and compliance. If they're choosing to use an RFP when they could skip it, they're likely price-sensitive or risk-averse—adjust positioning accordingly.

Future Trajectory: Where RFPs Are Headed

AI-Augmented RFP Processes on Both Sides

The next evolution isn't eliminating RFPs—it's making them radically more efficient through AI on both buy-side and sell-side.

Buy-side AI applications emerging:

1. Requirement generation: AI helps procurement teams generate comprehensive requirements by analyzing past RFPs, industry standards, and company needs. Instead of starting from scratch, procurement teams refine AI-generated templates.

2. Response evaluation: AI pre-scores vendor responses for completeness, compliance, and quality before human review. This reduces initial evaluation time by 60-70%.

3. Comparative analysis: AI creates side-by-side comparisons of vendor responses, highlighting differences and flagging inconsistencies or unclear answers.

4. Risk identification: AI scans responses for potential risks (vague language, missing compliance information, unrealistic timelines) and flags them for procurement team review.

Sell-side AI applications (what we've built at Arphie):

1. Intelligent response generation: AI analyzes questions, retrieves relevant content from knowledge bases, and generates customized first drafts that SMEs refine. This is the core of Arphie's AI-native approach.

2. Consistency enforcement: AI ensures answers don't contradict each other across sections and align with your positioning.

3. Compliance checking: AI verifies responses meet all requirements (word limits, required topics, format specifications) before submission.

4. Win/loss analysis: AI analyzes patterns in won versus lost RFPs to identify which response approaches correlate with success.

The equilibrium: As both buyers and sellers deploy AI, RFPs may become more sophisticated but also more efficient. We predict:

• RFP complexity will continue increasing (more detailed questions)
• Response times will stabilize or decrease (AI enables faster responses)
• Quality bar will rise (basic/generic responses will be instantly identified as AI-generated without customization)
• Differentiation will come from strategic positioning and evidence, not just capability claims

Standardization vs. Customization Tension

An interesting dynamic is emerging: some forces push toward RFP standardization, while others push toward hyper-customization.

Standardization drivers:

• Industry templates: Organizations like CISA publish standardized questionnaires (e.g., for cloud security) that multiple buyers adopt
• Compliance frameworks: SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and other frameworks create common question sets across buyers
• Efficiency pressure: Procurement teams want reusable templates to reduce RFP creation time
• AI enablement: Standardization makes AI-assisted evaluation more reliable

Customization drivers:

• Competitive requirements: Buyers need custom questions to evaluate unique needs
• AI-generated content concerns: Buyers add unique questions to force vendors to provide custom responses rather than AI-generated generic content
• Differentiation needs: Procurement teams want to ensure RFPs surface meaningful differences between vendors

Where this is heading: We predict a hybrid model:

• 60-70% of RFP questions become standardized (compliance, basic capabilities, administrative)
• 30-40% of questions remain highly customized (strategic fit, specific use cases, differentiation)
• Vendors will need excellent AI-assisted responses for standardized questions (table stakes)
• Vendors will win or lose based on customized question responses (competitive differentiator)

This is exactly the model Arphie enables: automate the standardized content so humans can focus energy on strategic customization.

The Persistent RFP Core

Despite alternatives emerging, we predict a "persistent RFP core" will remain for the foreseeable future:

Sectors where RFPs will remain dominant (>70% of deals):

• Government/public sector (driven by regulation)
• Higher education (institutional requirements)
• Healthcare systems (risk management and compliance)
• Financial services (audit and regulatory requirements)
• Large enterprise purchases >$1M (governance and risk mitigation)

What will change within this core:

1. RFPs will be AI-mediated on both sides: Procurement teams use AI to generate requirements and evaluate responses; vendors use AI to draft responses
2. Response expectations will increase: Basic capability claims won't suffice; buyers will expect detailed evidence, case studies, and specificity
3. Integration with sales process will deepen: RFPs will be explicitly positioned late in buying cycles, with pre-RFP engagement becoming formalized (e.g., "submit letter of interest before receiving RFP")
4. Vendor experience will matter more: Procurement teams will track which vendors are easy to work with (complete responses, meet deadlines, clear communication) and factor this into future decisions

Bottom line: The question isn't "are RFPs dying?" but rather "how are RFPs transforming, and how do we adapt?" Organizations that treat RFPs as a legacy annoyance will struggle. Organizations that embrace modern RFP practices—strategic qualification, early engagement, AI-augmented responses, and relationship building—will gain competitive advantage.

Practical Steps: What to Do This Quarter

If you're responsible for RFP responses, here's a concrete 90-day action plan:

Weeks 1-4: Audit Your Current State

Analyze your RFP pipeline and outcomes:

• Pull data on all RFPs you've received in the past 12 months
• Calculate: response rate (% you responded to), win rate (% you won), average response time, and average deal size
• Segment by: deals with prior engagement vs. cold RFPs, deal size, and industry vertical
• Identify: which segments have the highest win rates and ROI

Assess your content quality:

• Review 5-10 recent RFP responses with fresh eyes

• Score each response: Is it generic or customized? Evidence-based or claim-based?

• Does it actually answer the question asked or drift into related topics?

• Identify your 10 strongest response examples and 10 weakest—what patterns emerge?

Evaluate your team's capacity and skills:

• Map how much time each team member spends on RFP responses monthly
• Identify bottlenecks (e.g., "We always wait 3 days for the security team")
• Assess which team members have deep RFP expertise vs. those who struggle
• Document your current tool stack and where handoffs create friction

Weeks 5-8: Implement Quick Wins

Strengthen your qualification process:

• Create a formal go/no-go checklist using the framework outlined earlier
• Require qualification calls before committing to RFP responses
• Track qualification metrics: how many RFPs do you decline vs. pursue?

Improve content infrastructure:

• Build a centralized response library with your strongest answers to common questions
• Organize by category (company overview, technical capabilities, security, pricing, case studies)
• Assign owners to keep each section current (review quarterly)

Pilot automation in a limited scope:

• If you haven't already, test AI-assisted RFP tools like Arphie on 5-10 RFPs
• Measure time savings, response quality, and team satisfaction
• Calculate ROI: (time_saved × hourly_cost) + (additional_wins × deal_value) - tool_cost

Weeks 9-12: Build Systematic Improvement

Establish pre-RFP engagement protocols:

• Train your sales team on how to position for RFP success (champion development, requirement influence)
• Create resources for internal champions (briefing decks, ROI calculators, comparison guides)
• Track leading indicators: number of demos/POCs before RFPs arrive

Create feedback loops:

• After every RFP (win or loss), conduct a 15-minute debrief: What worked? What didn't? What would we do differently?
• Request buyer feedback when possible (many procurement teams will share evaluation notes if you ask)
• Document lessons learned and update your response library

Scale what works:

• If automation pilot was successful, expand to full team
• If certain verticals show high win rates, focus more outreach there
• If pre-RFP engagement correlates with wins, systematize it across sales process

Conclusion: The RFP Isn't Dead—It's Different

The data is clear: RFPs aren't disappearing, but their role has fundamentally shifted. They've evolved from exploration tools to confirmation mechanisms, appearing later in buying cycles and serving primarily as documentation, validation, and negotiation instruments.

The companies that succeed in this environment understand three critical realities:

First, the battle is won before the RFP arrives. Your win rate depends more on pre-RFP positioning—demos, pilots, champion development, and requirement influence—than on response quality alone. If you're seeing RFPs without prior engagement, you're already behind.

Second, response quality expectations have increased dramatically. Generic, claim-based responses are instantly filtered out. Winners provide extreme customization, evidence-based answers, implementation specificity, and strategic differentiation. Meeting this bar manually is increasingly difficult, which is why AI-augmented response tools have become competitive necessities rather than nice-to-haves.

Third, ruthless qualification is essential. With RFPs consuming 15-25% of many sales teams' capacity, responding to unwinnable opportunities is an expensive mistake. The best teams decline 30-40% of RFPs they receive, focusing resources on qualified opportunities where they have genuine competitive advantage.

The teams thriving in this environment share common characteristics: they've implemented systematic go/no-go frameworks, they've deployed AI-native tools like Arphie to automate repetitive work while preserving human judgment for strategic decisions, and they've built relationship capital continuously rather than reactively.

If your RFP response process still looks like it did in 2019—manual content searching, starting from scratch for each response, saying yes to every RFP, and winning 15-20% of competitive opportunities—you're operating at a significant competitive disadvantage.

The question isn't whether to invest in RFP excellence. If you're selling into enterprise, government, healthcare, financial services, or higher education at deal sizes above $250K, you'll encounter RFPs in 60-80% of opportunities. The question is whether you'll treat RFPs as a necessary administrative burden or as a strategic capability that creates competitive advantage.

Ready to transform your RFP process? Explore how Arphie's AI-native platform helps enterprise teams respond to RFPs 60% faster while improving response quality and win rates. Or start with our comprehensive library of RFP best practices to implement improvements immediately.

The RFP hasn't disappeared—it's evolved. Make sure your approach has evolved with it.