Principal, CEO
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 with minimal consequence.
Campaign planning and strategic planning are not paper towels.
Yet in the nonprofit sector, they are often subjected to the same procurement logic and 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 more than 35 years working in fundraising, including the past 15 years with a consulting firm that partners with organizations of varying size, sector, and complexity, one pattern has become increasingly clear: closed RFP processes are often the wrong mechanism for selecting a campaign or strategic planning partner.
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.
The challenge arises when fundraising and strategic planning are classified as commodity procurement simply because procurement rules apply. That classification shapes selection processes that prioritize compliance over judgment, documentation over dialogue, and price over partnership.
A process may be compliant and still fall short of supporting good decision-making.
The most effective selection processes we see, both in our own work and across the sector, find ways—within or alongside existing rules—to create space for discernment. Specifically, they:
- allow for 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
The sections that follow examine how this tension plays out in practice: why fundraising and strategy resist standardized procurement, how closed RFPs undermine meaningful comparison, and what nonprofit leaders unlock when they invite dialogue into the selection process.
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 variables that cannot be standardized in advance, including:
- 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; yet closed RFPs require organizations to assume that the scope of work can be fully specified in advance, priced accurately without context, and compared cleanly across firms that have never spoken to the client.
In practice, that assumption rarely holds.
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.
Without discovery conversations and the opportunity to shape the approach, firms are forced to make assumptions about scope, organizational readiness, and risk. Each firm interprets the RFP differently, prices uncertainty differently, and builds in different contingencies.
Closed RFPs prevent true apples-to-apples comparisons, and what appears to be a pricing difference is often a scope difference in disguise.
Some firms win by narrowing the scope of work, others by underpricing it, and still others by emphasizing brand recognition rather than fit. None of these approaches reliably predict success.
Why Group Discovery Sessions Fall Short
In an effort to balance fairness with engagement, some organizations hold group discovery sessions with all firms present. While well-intentioned, these sessions introduce new limitations.
We do not participate in group discovery sessions for two reasons:
- They discourage candor. Firms are understandably reluctant to ask nuanced questions or share differentiated thinking in front of competitors.
- They risk exposing proprietary methodologies, pricing logic, and other characteristics that distinguish firms in the marketplace.
More importantly, group sessions don’t build trust—they reward performance. Real discovery happens in conversation, not in competition.
Why We No Longer Respond to Closed RFPs
For many years, we responded to closed RFPs that did not allow interaction with the issuing organization.
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.
Over time, consistent 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 also saw the outcomes of those selections. Many of the resulting projects struggled, sometimes quietly and 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.
A Better Way: Inviting Input During Partner Selection
If nonprofit leaders want accurate fees and meaningful comparisons, the RFP itself must allow for dialogue.
When organizations permit individual discovery conversations and 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. Leaders and selection committees can evaluate firms based on how they think, how they listen, the realism of their proposed approach, and the appropriateness of the fee—not simply on who produced the most polished narrative.
What an Open RFP 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 project 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.
A Decision That Shapes Outcomes Long After the Contract Is Signed
Remember: a nonprofit is not buying paper towels when it selects a campaign or strategic planning partner.
Boards and executive leaders are choosing individuals who will influence strategic direction, shape fundraising capacity, and support leadership through periods of uncertainty and change. Those decisions affect staff alignment, board engagement, donor confidence, and the organization’s ability to execute on its mission.
Processes that restrict dialogue and discourage judgment limit leaders’ ability to make those decisions well. Closed RFPs may satisfy procedural requirements, but they rarely allow organizations to assess how a consulting firm thinks, listens, or adapts to the organization’s culture and constraints.
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.
Allowing for individual discovery conversations and inviting input on approach strengthen decision-making and enable leaders to assess judgment, listening ability, and cultural fit—factors that cannot be evaluated through a written proposal alone.
When leadership treats partner selection as a strategic decision rather than a transactional one, organizations are better positioned to engage experienced counsel, establish trust early, and move forward with confidence.
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an essay originally published by the Giving Institute, a highly selective group of consulting firms dedicated to the highest standards in ethical fundraising. Winkler Group is proudly a member firm of the Giving Institute.
About the Winkler Group
Strong communities depend on strong nonprofits. When those organizations thrive, the people they serve do too. We help make that impact possible.
For over two decades, the Winkler Group has specialized in guiding organizations from vision to action through strategic planning, capital campaigns, and fundraising counsel that delivers results.
A national firm headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina, with offices across the country, the Winkler Group proudly walks alongside organizations committed to education, community impact, and serving the greater good.
