If you’re buying paper towels, a closed RFP makes sense.

You define the specifications, solicit bids, compare prices, and select a vendor. The product is standardized. The risk is low. If one supplier disappoints, you switch the next year.

Campaign planning and strategic planning are not paper towels.

Yet, in the nonprofit sector, they are often treated as if they are, subject to the same procurement logic, the same constraints, and the same assumptions about comparability and price. The result is a selection process that may satisfy compliance requirements but frequently undermines the very outcomes nonprofit leaders are trying to achieve.

After 35 years working in fundraising and having spent the last 15 years with a consulting firm that works with organizations of every size, I’ve had a long view into how partnership decisions are made and how they play out over time.

One conclusion has become increasingly clear: closed RFP processes are often the wrong way to hire a campaign or strategic planning partner. This perspective is not offered in ignorance of reality.

WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS AND WHY THEY MATTER

Many states require closed RFPs for certain types of “procurement.” Boards, public funders, and legal counsel often insist on tightly controlled processes designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Many nonprofit CEOs are operating within rules they did not design and cannot easily change.

We understand this. We’ve worked within these systems for decades.

But this is precisely where the tension lies. Fundraising and strategic planning are routinely treated as commodity procurement simply because the rules use the word “procurement.” And that misclassification shapes selection processes that are poorly suited to the work itself.

Compliance may be necessary. But compliance alone does not produce strong partnerships or strong outcomes.

FUNDRAISING AND STRATEGY ARE NOT ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SERVICES

No two campaigns are the same. No two organizations are the same. And no two leadership teams are navigating identical histories, donor relationships, internal capacities, or external pressures.

Campaign planning and strategic planning are shaped by:

• organizational culture
• board and leadership dynamics
• donor psychology and relationships
• internal readiness and staff capacity
• appetite for risk, change, and growth

These variables are not peripheral. They are central to the work.

Yet closed RFPs require organizations to pretend that the work can be fully specified in advance, priced accurately without context, and compared cleanly across firms that have never spoken to the client.

That assumption rarely holds.

WHY WE NO LONGER RESPOND TO CLOSED RFPS

For many years, we would respond to RFPs that allowed no interaction with the potential client.

We invested significant time and care in responding to these closed RFPs because we believed deeply in the missions of the organizations issuing them. Often, based on our experience with similar organizations or campaigns, we knew we could be an excellent partner.

But over time, patterns emerged.

We routinely lost to firms that:

• proposed lower fees by under-scoping the work
• relied heavily on junior staff rather than senior, hands-on consultants
• emphasized large “logo gardens” over direct relevance and fit

We saw many of those projects struggle, sometimes quietly, sometimes visibly. Campaigns stalled. Strategic plans failed to gain traction. Organizations had to reset midstream or start over.

Eventually, we made a deliberate decision: we will no longer respond to closed RFPs.

Not because we don’t value rigor or accountability, but because closed processes systematically limit the ability to assess partnership in a meaningful way.

PARTNER FIT IS NOT A SOFT CONSIDERATION

One of the most persistent misconceptions in professional services selection is that partner fit is subjective or secondary.

In our experience, partner fit is the single most important consideration, assuming a firm has the appropriate experience and capability.

Our most successful engagements share common characteristics:

• We are treated as equal partners, not vendors.
• We are included in honest conversations early.
• We understand the organization’s culture, not just its stated goals.
• Trust is established before contracts are signed.

Every consultant at our firm has decades of experience. Any one of them could technically lead a project. But we do not assign leaders based on who is “up next.”

We assign based on:

• fit with the organization
• fit with the CEO and board chair
• fit with the moment the organization is in

Discernment of cultural fit cannot be evaluated through a closed proposal alone.

THE MYTH OF “APPLES-TO-APPLES” PRICING

Closed RFPs are often justified by the promise of comparability. If every firm responds to the same document, the thinking goes, leaders can compare proposals side by side and select the best value.

In practice, closed RFPs prevent true apples-to-apples comparisons.

Without discovery conversations and the opportunity to shape the approach, firms are forced to make assumptions. Each firm interprets the scope differently, prices uncertainty differently, and builds in different contingencies.

What appears to be a pricing difference is often a scope difference in disguise.

Some firms win by narrowing the work. Others by underpricing it. Still others by emphasizing brand recognition rather than fit. None of this reliably predicts success.

A BETTER WAY: INVITING INPUT DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS

If nonprofit leaders want accurate fees (and meaningful comparisons) the approach itself must be shaped during the selection process.

When organizations allow for individual discovery conversations, and when they invite input on approach and fit during the selection process, firms can:

• ask informed questions
• understand organizational constraints and capacity
• offer perspective grounded in experience
• help shape an approach that actually fits the organization

At that point, proposals are no longer guesswork. They are grounded in shared understanding.

This is when apples-to-apples comparisons become possible.

Organizations are then evaluating firms based on:

• how they think
• how they listen
• the quality and realism of their proposed approach
• the appropriateness of the fee

Not simply on who wrote the most polished narrative or priced most aggressively.

WHY GROUP DISCOVERY SESSIONS FALL SHORT

Some organizations attempt a compromise by holding group discovery sessions with all firms present. While well-intentioned, these sessions introduce new challenges.

We do not participate in group discovery sessions for two reasons.

First, they discourage candor. Firms are understandably reluctant to ask nuanced questions or share differentiated thinking in front of competitors.

Second, they risk exposing proprietary methodologies, pricing logic, and other characteristics that distinguish firms in the market.

More importantly, group sessions don’t build trust. They reward performance.

Real discovery happens in conversation, not in competition.

COMPLIANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS GOOD DECISION-MAKING

Nonprofit leaders are often navigating genuine constraints. The process may be compliant and still fall short.

The most effective selection processes we see, both in our own work and across the sector, find ways within or alongside existing rules to:

• allow individual discovery conversations
• invite input on approach and fit before proposals are finalized
• assess cultural and relational alignment early
• treat firms as potential partners, not interchangeable vendors

These approaches do not abandon fairness or accountability. They recognize that not all procurement is created equal.

WHAT AN OPEN RFP PROCESS WILL UNLOCK FOR NONPROFITS

When organizations allow for individual discovery conversations…
When they invite input on approach and fit during the selection process…
When they treat firms as potential partners rather than vendors…

Something important shifts.

Fees become more accurate because scope is clearer.
Comparisons become more meaningful because assumptions are shared.
And relationships begin forming before the work officially begins.

That foundation of trust, clarity, and mutual understanding is what allows experienced consultants to bring their full judgment to the table, and nonprofit leaders to move forward with confidence.

WHY THIS DECISION DESERVES MORE INTENTION

Remember: a nonprofit is not buying paper towels when they search for a campaign or strategic planning partner.

They are choosing people who will help shape the organization’s strategy, strengthen its fundraising capacity, and support leadership through moments of real complexity and consequence.

That work carries weight. It affects staff, boards, donors, and ultimately the communities served.

Selection processes that create space for dialogue, insight, and fit do more than improve outcomes; they reflect the seriousness of the work itself.

My aim in raising these concerns is not to criticize existing systems or constraints, but to encourage nonprofit leaders: CEOs, board chairs, and funders alike, to approach partner selection with the same care they bring to the decisions that follow.

When we take the time to choose partners thoughtfully, we give our organizations, and our missions, the strongest possible foundation for success.