I think this last comment, Adrian, really hits the nail right on the head.

However, and unfortunately, it is far easier to compare complex bids on objective quantitative measures than on relatively subjective qualitative ones. I’m not here to defend one over the other, I just think that’s the reality.

Thanks for taking the time to post your viewpoint.

The two 3PLs that I referenced are actually “name brand” service providers who work with large companies. Their frustration (which I also hear from many other 3PLs) is not that customers don’t develop very detailed RFPs. If anything, the RFPs they receive are often too detailed and time consuming to complete. Their frustration has more to do with the quality of the questions being asked, and the RFP process itself, which they believe limits their ability to more intimately understand a prospect’s near- and long-term objectives, and also limits their ability to more effectively communicate their “innovative” solutions and capabilities to achieve those objectives. Having a large prospective client subject them to a reverse auction is not a 3PL’s idea of how to create a collaborative partnership.

Of course, the examples I highlighted in the post are probably more the exception than the rule. But in general, I think most leading 3PLs and their customers approach an outsourcing relationship differently. 3PLs want to be viewed as “partners” while many companies (especially the procurement group) view 3PLs as “vendors” and it’s this mismatch that creates some friction.

I don’t know very many large companies who do not have very detailed RFP’s. Coming from the user side, I would say that the very large 3PL’s are able to respond approprately to an RFP. I find the smaller 3 PL’s operating under the ” give me you business and we’ll seee how it goes”. Or the larger ones who want to raise rates during the contract because they did not cost it out properly.