AV Technology presents the five-part series of articles on Navigating a Successful Higher Ed AV/IT RFP Process, written by Joe Way, PhD, CTS, executive director of Digital Spaces at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Digital & Technology Services.
Are you currently creating an AV/IT Request for Proposals (RFP)? If so, start here!
Based on recent and past personal experience, Joe Way chronicles the step-by-step process of creating, executing, and implementing the AV/IT RFP.
Way said, “Institutions should view it [the RFP] as an opportunity to articulate their vision with clarity, while vendors should approach it as a chance to demonstrate alignment with that vision. The most successful outcomes happen when the RFP becomes a bridge that translates institutional goals into practical requirements, allowing bidders to respond with solutions that go beyond the minimum spec sheet.”
All five parts will be published within one week. Come back here to view the next one.
To introduce the article series, AV Technology’s Cindy Davis chatted with Joe Way and asked him about best practices and if there were any surprises while creating and implementing the AV/IT RFP. Check out the interview below.
Know Your Audience
Do your research. A proposal that reads like it could have been written for any institution rarely earns top marks, while one that reflects a genuine understanding of the organization’s context immediately stands out. Take the time to learn the institution’s initiatives, priorities, and constraints before you begin writing. That means mining the executive summary, reading between the lines at the bidder webinar, and reviewing any linked materials, including strategic plans, sustainability commitments, accessibility standards, classroom guidelines, and even the academic calendar. Each of these sources provides valuable clues about what really matters and how decisions will be made.
The next step is to reflect that knowledge back in the proposal itself. Use the institution’s own language where possible, echo their terminology, and frame solutions in ways that directly address the challenges that have been identified. If faculty adoption is a known pain point, highlight your training and support program. If sustainability is a strategic priority, show how your design reduces power consumption or extends equipment life cycles. If you just saw in the news that an institution is going through layoffs, show how your solution allows for a longer shelf life and lower total cost of ownership. A proposal that feels “in tune” with the institution builds confidence that you understand not only the project but also the culture in which it will live.
At the same time, don’t be afraid to offer well-reasoned alternatives. Institutions often appreciate vendors who can point out risks, suggest more efficient approaches, or propose innovative methods that still align with stated priorities. The key is to present alternatives respectfully, showing how they advance the institution’s mission rather than diverging from it. Make it a “yes/and.” “Here is what you asked for, but have you considered this?” sets you up as a respected partner. This balance between responsiveness and thought leadership demonstrates that you are not just trying to win the bid; you are positioning yourself as a true colleague in discovering the best solution.
Never include unnecessary marketing filler in an RFP response. Boilerplate text can be seen from a mile away, and after reading ten other proposals stuffed with it, it becomes a turnoff. It creates the impression that the proposal is compensating for a lack of substance, only adding frustration for evaluators. Remember, every item submitted must be read and reviewed; forcing a committee to wade through a 40-slide PowerPoint presentation about your company’s market position does not strengthen your case; it detracts from it. The evaluation team is not looking for glossy brochures or generic sales pitches; they are looking for clear, targeted answers that demonstrate how your solution meets the project’s needs. Keep responses concise, relevant, and directly tied to the RFP requirements.
As a final bonus tip, consider compiling all your responses into a clean, well-formatted PDF attachment that incorporates visuals, especially when any of the questions ask for previous work examples. While the official submission may be required in an Excel file or similar format, a companion document with relevant images, such as system diagrams, room layouts, or annotated photos, can add context and bring your answers to life. The key is to keep the visuals purposeful, not generic marketing material, so they directly support your written responses. Just be sure every answer is still fully written in the required submission format. Never substitute any answer for “see attachment.” Instead, let the PDF serve as an enhancement that reinforces the message and helps evaluators visualize the solution.
Responding to the RFP
Earning the trust of evaluators, while demonstrating both competency and value to those who may know little about the vendor or their track record, is the goal of the RFP response. It is not simply meeting a deadline and hoping for good news a few weeks down the road. The strongest responses respect the process by making life easier for the reviewers, leaving nothing unanswered, and showing a clear connection between the proposed solution, the project goals, and the institution’s mission. Proposals that anticipate what evaluators need, present information in a self-contained and accessible way, will rise to the top. In other words, the vendors who win are the ones who treat the RFP not as a formality, but as a chance to prove they are already thinking like a partner.
The single most important piece of advice I can give any vendor responding to the bid is to treat each and every single prompt as a contract: answer exactly what is asked, completely and clearly. Break multi-part questions into sub-headings and respond to each element in order that nothing is missed. If something is not applicable, say so and explain why. Never leave anything blank. Mirror the RFP’s language and numbering system to make scoring effortless. Pick up on the hints that are right in front of you; don’t be a salesperson, be a colleague searching for a common outcome. Before submitting, run a compliance matrix and have a second (and third, and fourth) reader verify completeness. Many evaluators will assign a zero if any part of a question is unanswered; precision and thoroughness protect your scores. Those couple of points on even seemingly meaningless, monotonous questions add up and could be the difference between winning and losing the bid. A common thought is that higher ed is, if the vendor won’t take the time to be thorough during the bid process, why would we think they’d pay attention to details after being awarded it? E.g., if the prompt asks for three examples of something, don’t just give two great ones and think you answered the question.
When answering, also understand that specs describe what; it’s the mission that explains why. A proposal that only checks the specification boxes risks blending in with every other submission. However, one that connects solutions to the institution’s larger purpose stands out immediately. (Ahem… what was said during the webinar as to why this project is even being done?). Frame every feature and response in terms of outcomes that matter: teaching effectiveness, student experience, accessibility, sustainability, security, and total cost of ownership. All too often, the response might be “XYZ AVoIP device,” rather than “Networkable XYZ IP device for streamlined real-time support and lower TCO.” These are the areas where decision-makers see the long-term value of their investment, not just the immediate functionality of a product. Using concrete scenarios makes this connection even more powerful. Instead of saying, “The system supports wireless presentation,” demonstrate it: “In a 200-seat lecture hall, faculty can seamlessly present from any device, reducing setup time and allowing class to begin on schedule.” Remember who you are presenting to… the people who feel the pain-points.
It’s equally important to translate technical advantages into measurable value. Rather than simply noting redundancy or advanced monitoring, show how those features deliver quantifiable benefits: reduced downtime, fewer emergency support calls, predictable maintenance cycles, and lower energy consumption. Provide data where possible: uptime targets, projected training hours, energy savings, or detailed service-level agreements. Numbers anchor claims in credibility and make evaluators more confident in your proposal.
Most importantly, whenever possible, tie your solution to the institution’s strategic pillars or success metrics. A well-done webinar and written proposal will convey that information. If the RFP emphasizes sustainability, highlight and design around energy-efficient components. If accessibility is central, detail how the design meets or exceeds ADA compliance. By aligning directly with the stated mission, you move beyond being seen as a vendor responding to specs and establish yourself as a partner invested in advancing the institution’s goals. That positioning creates a competitive advantage, because in the end, you’re not just offering pieces and parts, you’re offering progress.
Keep everything evaluators need inside the proposal itself. Unless the RFP explicitly requests it, avoid external links. Depending upon the rules established by the procurement department, reviewers may not even be allowed to click them. Even worse, dead or password-protected pages will only hurt your score; your departmental contact might have an account with your company, but not necessarily the external evaluator you have met. That’s an automatic zero on that item, even if providing an excellent example. If links are permitted, place them only after a complete, self-contained answer (e.g., “see more”), and ensure they’re stable, publicly accessible, and tested in advance by a non-logged-in viewer. Appendices are a better place for deeper detail when allowed, but always cross-reference clearly from the main text so the evaluators know where to look.
The goal is a seamless reading experience: no scavenger hunts, no guessing, and no extra steps that make reviewers work harder than they should. Every additional click or cross-reference is an opportunity for confusion, delay, or inconsistency in scoring. A clean, contained proposal demonstrates respect for the evaluation committee’s time and makes it easier for them to give credit where credit is due. Ultimately, the easier you make it for evaluators to find and understand your answers, the more likely they are to fully recognize the value being brought. For example, a weak response might simply state, “Our training program is robust. For more details, see [www.*vendorlink*.com/training].” This approach forces evaluators to leave the proposal, provides no real substance, and risks broken links or access issues. A stronger response would be, “Our training program provides three tiers of support: (1) initial onsite orientation, (2) on-demand video tutorials, and (3) advanced certification workshops for the engineering support team. This structure has reduced support tickets by 35% at comparable institutions. Additional resources, including sample agendas and facilitator bios, are provided in Appendix B (see page 42).” In this example, the evaluator has everything they need in the proposal itself, with the appendix offering added depth for those who want more detail.
Likewise, evaluators can only score what’s on the page. Even if the bidder is the incumbent or a trusted partner with “preferred vendor” status, do not assume all evaluators have familiarity with your work. Include the proof: brief case studies, references, service metrics, commissioning reports, training plans, and maintenance outcomes, concisely in the main body, with details in appendices if space is limited. Longer answers demonstrate that the bidder took the time and effort to understand and align the response to the prompt’s intention. The documented intentionality will speak for itself; unsubmitted “knowns” can’t earn points and may result in zeros on otherwise winnable questions.
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Josiah Way himself, speaking in his personal capacity as an industry professional. They do not represent the positions, policies, or endorsements of UCLA, UC Regents, HETMA, Higher Ed AV, or any of Josiah Way’s affiliated institutions or organizations. Nothing contained herein should be interpreted as a promise, guarantee, or commitment regarding current or future business relationships, procurement decisions, or bid outcomes. The content provided reflects general industry best practices and professional perspective gained through personal experience only and should not be construed as binding guidance or official policy.
