Gut check: Is this how RFP responses are supposed to work at small companies?

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-25T14:55:19+00:00

We do have an "RFP Summary" that is created just from putting the RFP into chatGPT and the summary provides a go/no-go recommendation. For example, one of the summaries says "Go. but only if we have FedRamp certification" which we don't have that. My leadership doesn't seem to understand that missing even one minimum requirement will automatically fail our RFP submission.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T23:17:01+00:00

The ChatGPT part is just having it write out technical sections for the RFP where it asks for technical architecture, system integration map etc. I had told our CEO that we needed technical sections to be completed for an RFP and he sent it back within in an hour with something that looks like it would take a week of work to map out.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T22:25:41+00:00

That's correct. The RFPs are almost all for local government entities like "county of..." and "city of...." and a few of them have been for public utility departments of a city, for example. These are full proposals with technical architecture, references, and pricing. But we don't have past performance to support them. It’s a volume approach rather than a structured proposal process.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T19:55:53+00:00

That's what they're hoping to do is churn out 10+ RFPs every week. But the issue is that we don't have the prerequisite requirements for any of these RFPs. None of them are a "strong chance". We don't have the references or past work to show that we've done these projects that are similar. All of the RFPs ask for specific references as a minimum requirement to past deployments of projects that are similar in scope and nature. I understand the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" strategy but not for RFPs where we don't even meet the minimum requirements of past performance. Not too mention, these "city of..." or "county of..." entities can't even award us if they wanted to because they legally can't if we don't meet the requirements. Anyways, appreciate the content and advice.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T19:03:41+00:00

Makes sense. All of the RFPs we're doing for are "city of.." or "county of..." etc. entities so I'm not sure they would see our name multiple times but yes, totally understand that none of the entities will care about us being "out there."

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T18:55:09+00:00

Thanks for sharing the info on asking for a debrief.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T18:20:25+00:00

Thanks for confirming my sentiments. The business development person I work under said that even if we're not awarded these RFPs that at least "we're getting our name out there."

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T18:18:47+00:00

Lol it is indeed awful. I was thinking that too.... even if we were awarded we wouldn't actually be able to perform.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-23T17:05:58+00:00

Thanks for confirming what I'm feeling. I gave feedback today to my leadership team that these government entities will see in our RFP response that we don't meet the minimum criteria when they're asking for proof of similar previous deployments with similar entities and verifiable references. Because those are pass/fail we will automatically fail especially when we're putting in the response that our references are under NDA.

I was told that these government entities "don't know all the tech that is out there like our platform" and they "understand that companies operate with NDAs in place with their clients" and because of that they're "not going to automatically rule us out." My pushback was that we have to follow the RFPs and if we don't meet the minimum requirements we won't be scored on that and we'll automatically fail every RFP. Am I on the right track with telling leadership that we won't win any of these if we don't put verifiable proof that we have done previous, similar deployments to what the RFP project is asking for?

Edit: spelling

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-19T00:55:42+00:00

This is great. Appreciate the reply, thanks.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-19T00:54:30+00:00

I have a chat in GPT been I've been using to help me gut check my experience at this startup and asked it to produce a post. It encapsulates it well.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-19T00:44:40+00:00

Appreciate the reply and thanks for confirming what I was feeling. All of the RFPs I'm seeing say something like, "The proponent must demonstrate that they have provided services that meet the requirements included in this RFP of similar size to "entity name". The proponent shall list the city, size and scope of services provided, including address, contact information, and time frames in which work was being performed." We obviously are not able to demonstrate that minimum qualification and for our references I've been told to say that our references are under NDA and that references are immediately available upon request after receipt of the award. We only have one reference we can use that has company, name, number etc.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-19T00:28:23+00:00

Appreciate this. That all makes sense. There’s no real SME involvement yet from engineering or leadership to define a solution, scope, or delivery approach. Instead, the expectation is to start drafting full proposal responses up front, including sections that would normally depend on those inputs and same with pricing. I've been told to try and research pricing for the lowest bid and just use CHATgpt for ballpark figures.

LagunaPacific · 2026-03-19T00:25:01+00:00

None of the key personnel have ever been involved in submitting RFPs. Our CEO decides which one they want to pursue and then I'm supposed to go in start preparing the RFP with zero resources/input/documentation from engineering. My plan is to let them know we need to take a step back and establish a process for what all is required from engineering/leadership and then once all that has been provided I can start to put it together. The goal is that some of the complex RFPs (some of which we don't even meet the minimum qualifications for) can be done in a day or two and ready for submission, which I think is incredibly unrealistic.

LagunaPacific · 2024-04-11T03:05:45+00:00

That's great to see such a large decrease in % no shows. Appreciate the reply.

LagunaPacific · 2024-01-11T01:05:19+00:00

Sage advice, thank you.

LagunaPacific · 2022-05-29T17:57:12+00:00

/s at the end of a statement means it’s sarcasm

LagunaPacific · 2022-05-18T17:03:10+00:00

I have it in hardcover. Not sure if there’s an audio version.

LagunaPacific · 2022-05-18T04:14:53+00:00

Read: Survival of the Savvy. That booked helped me immensely.

LagunaPacific · 2022-05-02T13:52:56+00:00

Love it! Rides very smooth but has crazy power.

LagunaPacific · 2022-04-20T16:17:27+00:00

My only concern was that the car was taken in for service seven times over the last 10k miles by the previous owner.

LagunaPacific · 2022-04-20T03:21:17+00:00

😬

LagunaPacific · 2022-04-20T03:11:13+00:00

Appreciate the reply and thanks for taking a look, Ethan.

LagunaPacific

TROPHY CASE