You open the RFP. The requirements are vague. The evaluation criteria are absent. The scope is described in three sentences that somehow need a 60-page response. Section 4 contradicts Section 9. The deadline is aggressive. The contact details section tells you to direct all queries to a general inbox that nobody monitors.
Welcome to the poorly written RFP. It’s more common than the well-written one.
Here’s how to handle it without losing your sanity — or your shot at the deal.
First: Resist the Urge to Complain
Yes, it’s frustrating. Yes, you’ve seen better RFPs from procurement teams half the size. But complaining — internally, or in any communication with the client — costs you more than it gains.
The people who wrote the RFP are usually not the people who will evaluate your response. And even when they are, nobody awards a contract to the vendor who pointed out their documentation was sloppy.
Channel the frustration into diagnosis. A poorly written RFP tells you something useful about the client: they may be new to procurement, they may be under resourced, or they may not have fully clarified their own requirements internally. Each of these scenarios has implications for how you respond.
Step 1: Separate the Explicit From the Implied
Go through the document and make two lists.
Explicit requirements — things they have directly asked for, even if vaguely worded.
Implied requirements — things they clearly need but haven’t articulated. A client asking for “a digital transformation solution” probably also needs change management. A client asking for “improved data visibility” probably also needs data governance. They didn’t write it because they haven’t thought it through — not because they don’t need it.
When you address implied requirements in your response — explicitly naming them and proposing an approach — you demonstrate expertise. You show the client something they didn’t fully see themselves. That’s memorable. That’s differentiation.
Step 2: Use the Clarification Window — Strategically
Almost every formal RFP process includes a Q&A window. Use it. But use it strategically, not just to fill gaps in your own understanding.
The questions you ask in a clarification process are also positioning. A well-crafted question signals that you understand the complexity of what they’re trying to achieve. It shows depth. It sometimes causes other vendors to second-guess their own assumptions.
Bad clarification question: “Can you please specify the technical requirements for the integration layer?”
Better clarification question: “Given the legacy architecture described in Section 2 and the real-time processing requirement in Section 5, are you open to a hybrid integration approach, or is a full rip-and-replace expected within scope?”
The second question tells the client: you’ve read carefully, you understand the technical tension, and you’ve already started thinking about approaches. That’s a question from someone who knows what they’re doing.
Step 3: State Your Assumptions — Clearly and Confidently
When an RFP is unclear, the worst thing you can do is pretend it isn’t. The second worst thing is to ask for clarification on everything and wait.
The right move is to make reasonable assumptions, state them explicitly in your response, and proceed on that basis.
Example: “In the absence of a defined integration specification, this response assumes a RESTful API architecture with existing ERP systems in scope. Should the actual requirements differ materially, our team is prepared to adjust the approach during the discovery phase.”
This does three things: it shows you’ve thought it through, it demonstrates technical confidence, and it protects you commercially from scope creep that originates from the client’s own ambiguity.
Step 4: Organise the Response Better Than the RFP
If the RFP structure is chaotic, don’t mirror that chaos. Create a response structure that is logical, easy to navigate, and tells a coherent story — while still ensuring you’ve addressed every requirement.
Use a compliance matrix if needed: a table that maps each RFP requirement to the section of your response where it’s addressed. It shows rigour. It makes the evaluator’s job easier. Evaluators who find your document easy to score tend to score it better.
Step 5: Over-Clarify Your Commercial Assumptions
Vague RFPs often produce vague scope — which leads to commercial risk. When pricing a response to an ambiguous brief, be explicit about what is and isn’t included.
Don’t just submit a number. Submit a number with a clearly articulated scope boundary. “This proposal covers X, Y, and Z. It excludes A, B, and C, which would be subject to separate scoping.”
This isn’t defensive — it’s professional. It protects both parties. And in evaluation, it demonstrates commercial maturity that vague, all-inclusive pricing often doesn’t.
The Hidden Opportunity
Here’s the thing about a poorly written RFP: it levels the playing field in your favour — if you’re disciplined.
Most vendors will respond to a vague RFP vaguely. They’ll mirror the ambiguity, answer only what’s asked, and produce a response that’s as confused as the document that prompted it.
If you respond with clarity, structure, and insight — if you help the client understand their own problem better through your response — you stand apart. Not despite the poor RFP, but because of it.
The messy brief is an invitation to demonstrate expertise. Take it.