The supertanker that is the corporate hotel program process is slowly turning around – but not fast enough for many buyers and sellers. The tried-and-true RFP, long considered in need of reform, remains stubbornly intact. Non-loading of negotiated rates and travelers themselves not adhering to policy persist as perennial issues. So does the issue of static vs. dynamic rates. 

The question now: Can AI and the power of technology finally deliver the tools that will turn that big ship around?

RFP: A Persistent Presence

Radical change – at least for RFP’s turnaround timeline – is called for, according to Tim Wagner, senior vice president, supply and operations for HRS Group, a corporate hotel booking platform. HRS has laid down an ambitious goal in the next year to get the chronically prolonged RFP period down from 170 to 17 days partly through the use of AI. However, Wagner says the company needs the support of hotels to reduce response time. There has been a lot of progress on that front in the last year, he notes.

The main thing that needs to change, Wagner maintains, is the idea of revisiting the RFP annually. He would opt for a “no-touch” 17-day review with evergreen rates that might increase with inflation. “There is no need to negotiate with hotels you already like,” says Wagner. “Why do you need to negotiate year after year? You should have a set rate and make changes if there’s a change in demand or supply.” 

There are those who see the RFP as wobbly – or worse. Mark Corbett, senior director, commercial innovation and strategy at Navan, says “there is a clear industry trend of shifting away from static annual RFPs.” Programs are increasingly adopting continuous optimization models, he says, “where rates, suppliers, and strategies are adjusted in real-time, allowing for greater flexibility and responsiveness to current market demand, supplier performance and traveler behavior.”

Chris Crowley, partner at Kintela Group, a strategic communications and commercial planning firm for the travel industry, says that for mid-to-large chains the case for a standardized RFP format – such as the GBTA template – still holds, “but it is increasingly the exception rather than the rule.” 

The hotel RFP, says Crowley, “remains an inefficient mechanism for both buyers and hotels. It is a high-effort, low-agility process that was designed for a static market and has not kept pace with dynamic pricing environments.”  The solution: “Replace it with continuous sourcing, dynamic discount frameworks and AI-driven hotel discovery. The infrastructure exists; what’s missing is the willingness to let go of a process that has outlived its purpose.”

While many long for the demise of the RFP as they know it, others only see the need for reform. Rachel Newns, global hotel practice lead for FCM consulting, says the hotel RFP “remains a critical component of managed travel programs because it continues to serve an important purpose for both buyers and suppliers.”

While there have been discussions around extending rate validity periods to 18-month or even two-year programs, says Newns, hotels are often reluctant to commit to rates for longer durations in the current market. Where longer-term agreements are available, they can sometimes result in higher rates as hotels build additional risk into their pricing. 

Similarly, Chasity Schlimm, project management officer, Fox World Travel, says, “Structured annual hotel sourcing continues to play an important role in our clients’ travel programs.” Rather than over-saturating markets with unnecessary negotiations, she says “we guide clients to source only where it truly supports their business needs, ensuring a more efficient, targeted and cost-effective sourcing strategy.”

Jennifer Nicholas, senior director, global practice area lead, hotel spend management, for Advito, the consulting arm of BCD Travel, advises: “Keep optimizing. Watch market shifts, check in with your travelers, and adjust where necessary. And don’t underestimate the traveler experience. If employees find it easy to book preferred hotels, see clear value in negotiated perks and feel supported along the way, compliance will follow naturally. That’s when you see both savings and satisfaction.” 

From the hotel side, Brian Macaluso, vice president-global sales for Sonesta International Hotels, says, “Overall there are too many RFP questions – the questions should be standardized to what is 100 percent required and eliminate all others by clients.” In addition, he says, “the property profile should answer many of the questions – there should be an auto match to avoid duplication.” Finally, says Macaluso, “when an RFP surfaces, most hotels will bid as if they will be preferred. I believe this should be determined prior to the bid to streamline the decision process.”

Is It All About AI? 

It’s still early but there is no question that AI will exert a massive impact on the buyer-seller relationship – and sooner rather than later. There is already extensive deployment of AI in the RFP process, according to Wagner, who notes: “we use it for what we need to source in a destination, specific traveler information so we can tailor it to them. These things are vastly accelerated by AI and it also helps us to reduce ADR.”

Hotel operators see AI as speeding up the RFP slog. Kirk Pederson, COO of PM Hotels, a hospitality management company, says AI “is enabling hotels to get to corporate contacts faster and this is proving to be a benefit to sellers.” At another management company, Pyramid Hotel Group, CEO Warren Fields says that AI has enabled his hotels to respond to RFPs faster and also enhanced available data so the hotels can provide clients with a better product. “We can really tailor to their individual needs,” Fields says. 

Great Rates – But Not Available?

Even with all the current technology, it seems a good percentage of negotiated rates somehow become unavailable – but TMCs claim to be staying on top of it. According to Wagner, HRS’ first audits of negotiated rates will often show 30 to 40 percent of rates are loaded incorrectly. After the first audit, that will go to 90-95 percent loaded correctly, including some done manually. 

Rate loading is extremely effective when a client has an assigned national account manager, says Schlimm. Without that strategic relationship, she says, “rate loading and/or auditing can be challenging and time-consuming.” It’s understandable, she says, “that clients feel frustrated when they invest in a sourcing activity, accept an offer and then the hotel fails to load rates into the GDS.”

Through consistent monthly GDS rate availability audits and proactive supplier management practices, says Alexis Sisko, director, hotel spend management at Advito, her company achieved an average negotiated rate availability of 83 percent across full-year 2025, exceeding its benchmark and supporting stronger rate integrity outcomes.

Compliance Conundrum

Even when the appropriate rates are available, travelers may book elsewhere. The primary drivers of hotel leakage, says Corbett, “are program fragmentation from an oversized portfolio and poor content visibility where negotiated rates become unbookable in the GDS.” Navan addresses these challenges, he says, “through strategic portfolio consolidation and diligent rate auditing with rapid escalation protocols.” 

When it comes to policy, says Cameron Spence, hotel practice line lead for Amex GBT, “we are seeing more of our clients looking to tighten their rules rather than relaxing them.” This is most prevalent, he says, “around booking channel adoption to ensure that travelers are selecting preferred content, and that they are also trackable at any given time.”

The biggest driver of compliance, says Wagner, is direct payment integration, “something travelers love since they don’t need to do expense accounts.” Customers who use HRS’ payment option, he says, typically see 10-15 percent policy adoption increase.

Taking a different point of view, Crowley says leakage “is an increasingly obsolete frame.” Program deviation, he says, is driven far less by RFP non-compliance than by a broader set of behavioral factors such as city per diems, loyalty allegiances, external event attendance, location preferences, promotional pricing and seasonality. “Policy governance has moved on,” says Crowley; “the language needs to follow.”

And many believe, as does Yola Marshall, vice president global sales, Americas for IHG Hotels & Resorts, that a more consumer-like experience will drive compliance. Programs like IHG Business Edge are designed with that in mind, she says, “giving small and midsize businesses an easy way to access discounted rates across IHG’s portfolio, while also offering benefits like loyalty earning, simplified enrollment, and visibility into travel spend and patterns.”

The Static vs. Dynamic Debate

The perennial dynamic-static tug of war continues, with major chains declaring the dynamic is the only way to go while buyers prefer restraint on that approach. Reflecting the big brand approach, Larry Cuculic, CEO of BWH Hotel Group, which operates Best Western, WorldHotels and many other brands, says, “Pricing has to be dynamic because if you go static, you’re not being flexible enough or driving enough revenue.” 

And Marshall is even more emphatic, saying, “The biggest myth is that static, fixed rates are the clearest measure of a successful program. In reality, those rates can quickly become uncompetitive as market conditions change.”  Success is less about a single negotiated rate and more about overall program performance. 

At Sonesta International, Macaluso says: “Dynamic rates by nature were created for flexibility and this allows our clients to work with Sonesta at multiple locations without the process of negotiating direct rates hotel by hotel. Static rates are typically requested when there is a specific need, whether it be location, cap spend or budget.”

But again, TMCs are wary. Hotels, says Schliimm, continue to bid dynamic pricing in their initial offer regardless of what is requested in the cover letter. One of the downfalls of dynamic pricing, says Schlimm, is that “it leaves the client with a lot of uncertainties: Uncertainty of the actual rate, uncertainty of how to quantify savings and uncertainty about how to communicate dynamic rates to their travelers.”

As has been the case for the last few years, says Spence, “we are seeing dynamic rate adoption growing slowly but surely.” During last year’s sourcing season, he says, dynamic rate acceptances were up 3 percent, and although this shows a growing openness, it doesn’t yet point to a rapid adoption industry wide. 

But there may be a middle way. Navan, says Corbett, quantifies the ROI of a hotel program, even in a dynamic pricing environment, by consistently analyzing the client’s average booked rates against both historical and projected Best Available Rates. This direct comparison, he says, allows the company to demonstrate the tangible savings and overall value delivered by the program across both static and dynamic rate structures.

With all this stubbornness in the hotel program process, change will inevitably happen. Says Crowley: “Traveler empowerment will be the defining shift in the coming months.” Alongside it, he says, “is a move toward experiential and purposeful travel, where the trip is expected to deliver something beyond the meeting.” Business travel, says Corbett, “is being reframed around outcomes, not just logistics.”