What a request for proposals is
A request for proposals, often shortened to RFP, is a public invitation for firms to submit ideas and offers for a task the city has defined but not fully solved. Unlike a simple price bid, where the work is already specified, an RFP asks respondents to say how they would do it, who would do it and what it would cost or what they would pay.
In renewal, RFPs are commonly used when a public body owns a vacant or underused site and wants it redeveloped. The city sets out its goals, the respondents offer competing visions, and the city picks the proposal that best fits. Procedures vary, and local rules about public land disposition and procurement may dictate parts of the process.
Before writing: be clear on goals
The weakest RFPs are vague. If a city asks for “a vibrant mixed-use project,” it will receive a wide spread of responses that are hard to compare. Before drafting, decide:
- What must the project achieve, and what would be nice to have?
- Which rules are fixed, such as zoning codes and required public access?
- What does the city bring: land, financial support, infrastructure, a streamlined approval path?
- What risks will the city keep, and what will respondents carry?
Community input before the RFP is issued is especially valuable. Residents can help set priorities, such as housing types, public space or local hiring, so these are in the document from the start rather than added after proposals arrive.
What the document usually contains
- Background and site description. Boundaries, ownership, current condition, utilities, known environmental issues, and results of any site analysis or feasibility studies. Sharing this openly prevents bidders from pricing in unknowns.
- Goals and priorities. Plainly stated, ideally ranked.
- Required and desired elements. Minimum standards versus bonus features.
- Deal terms. Whether the land will be sold or leased, expected timelines, and any public contributions.
- Submission requirements. The documents expected: concept drawings, a financial plan, team qualifications, a schedule, a community benefits plan and references.
- Evaluation criteria and weights. What will be scored and how much each part counts.
- Process rules. Deadlines, how to ask questions, whether answers are shared with everyone, and how conflicts of interest are handled.
Publishing the scoring criteria in advance is central to fairness. Respondents know what matters, and the public can check that the final decision matches.
Asking the right amount
An RFP that demands full architectural drawings and legal agreements at the first stage can exclude smaller firms and community-based groups who cannot afford to prepare them. Many cities use two steps: a short request for qualifications to narrow the field, followed by detailed proposals from a shortlist. This keeps the effort proportional and widens participation.
Evaluating responses
A scoring matrix helps make comparison orderly. Typical categories include:
- Fit with goals: does the concept deliver the stated priorities?
- Team experience: has the team completed comparable projects?
- Financial strength and realism: is there credible funding, and do the assumptions hold? A basic review of a development pro forma can reveal hopeful numbers.
- Design quality and public benefit: how does the project treat the street, public space and neighbors?
- Community approach: what is the plan for engagement and for local hiring or contracting?
- Schedule and risk: is the timeline realistic, and who bears the risk if it slips?
- Price or offer to the city: where land is being sold or leased.
Evaluators should score independently first and then discuss, to avoid one strong voice swaying the group. Notes should record the reasons for scores. Evaluators with a conflict of interest, such as a financial link to a respondent, should step down.
Pitfalls to watch
Rewarding the best presentation instead of the best plan. Polished renderings can hide weak finances. Asking for evidence, such as financing letters or past project records, balances this.
Hope over reality. Proposals that promise the most public benefit may also be the least likely to be built. A careful reviewer asks how each promise would be paid for and enforced.
Changing the rules midstream. Altering criteria after seeing responses undermines trust and may invite protest.
Treating price as the only measure. For land deals, the highest offer may not produce the best use of the site. At the same time, ignoring price entirely is hard to defend to taxpayers.
Weak follow-through. A selected proposal is a starting point. The city still needs to negotiate binding terms, with deadlines, penalties and clawback provisions if the developer fails to deliver. Without them, a stalled site is a real risk.
Community involvement in judging
Some cities share finalists’ ideas in open sessions and gather public feedback before deciding. This can inform scoring and helps residents understand trade-offs. It works best when the city is clear about how the feedback will be used, since feedback is advice and not a vote unless stated otherwise.
Keeping the process fair and understandable
Document each step, answer all questions in writing to every participant and publish the final scoring summary. Debrief unsuccessful respondents, which improves future competition. These habits protect the public’s trust.
An RFP does not guarantee a good project. It is a tool for surfacing options and comparing them in daylight. The quality of the outcome depends on the clarity of the goals, the honesty of the evaluation and the strength of the agreement that follows.