Why the Current RFI/RFP Frenzy?
As a result of the confluence of a number of disruptions in the managed travel space in 2026, there have been a flurry of RFIs (Request for Information) and RFPs (Request for Proposal) that are overwhelming the sales and proposal response teams of the TMCs.
The RFI is nothing more than a collection of information, most of which you can garner from the TMC’s website and some networking with your buyer/procurement colleagues. As a result, the TMCs have to “Decline To Bid” on some of these outreaches because they have to focus on the RFPs that are both tangible and offer a greater than 50 percent chance of the TMC winning that new client.
The RFI Has No Credibility
I’ve been in this industry long enough to have been involved in RFIs as a TMC, a buyer and for the last 25 years as a consultant helping clients select their TMC. Some of my “peers” have written articles saying an RFP is a “waste of time” and that the client should issue an RFI before any RFP is issued.
In my opinion, that’s not only double work for both sides, but the RFI Rarely Forces Innovation. At best, it asks a slew of binary questions: “Do you?” “Can you?” “Have you?” “Will you?” It’s easy for the TMC to simply say yes (or no) to each answer because the RFI is not a binding document.
The RFP Is Overly Cumbersome & Bloated
Some of my TMC colleagues have told me that they received an RFP with over 250 questions and were only given three weeks to respond. That process is destined to failure, and many of the TMC bidders will decline to bid on principle alone.
I don’t blame them
I’ve avoided mentioning how Partnership Travel Consulting runs our RFPs as this is not an infomercial and not my style. I’m offering advice to the buyers and TMCs in this article. As a start, the RFP should focus on questions that are differentiating among the TMC bidders. To ask questions that each TMC will respond nearly identically does not allow for a scorecard system based on the differences in their answers.
In addition to asking way too many questions (that can be saved for the fewer TMCs that are down-selected), the RFP also contains dozens of pricing rows for a cacophony of fee-types, many of which had less than two transactions a month. If it’s merely to assemble pricing charts, you are wasting everyone’s time by asking for every transaction type under the sun – worse yet, for every Country in Scope!
There’s a better way: Create two separate RFPs for TMC sourcing.
Two Versions of the New RFP
The first version of the RFP should not have any pricing metrics in it whatsoever. This reduces the burden on the TMC’s Finance Team, and you only ask for it in the second version of the TMC RFP (to fewer TMCs) The first version asks a series of questions by category and requests the TMC to “describe” not respond with a Yes/No answer.
In order to receive credible answers, the TMC bidders should be instructed that their answers will be legally binding and attached to the MSA if they win the RFP process. That ensures that the answers are not merely sales-answers; they are bona fide and binding to the TMC and therefore need senior management approval.
RFP 1: Read the Fine Print (no pricing just words)
The Devil is always in the detail, and we’ve seen plenty of evidence of same. Where we ask the TMC to confirm that every response in a Global RFP applies to all of the Countries in Scope unless they identify the exceptions on an Exception Tab, it’s amazing how often the tab is blank. But upon validation with the TMCs their answers in many cases only apply to a handful of markets.
We’ve seen TMC notes that were 26 different rows (yes, one for each letter) sometimes in a different attachment. Examples are:
a) This RFP response is valid for 60 days.
b) The TMC reserves the right to change any of the responses if the client’s data (going forward) differs from the RFP data.
c) Pricing is subject to renegotiation due to “changes in the industry” (but they don’t list examples)
d) My favorite: An annual COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) for online touchless bookings.
RFP 2: Request For Pricing
Once you have issued RFP 1 for the TMC to differentiate themselves from the competition, you can then issue an RFP specific to their fees and only their fees. I’m calling that RFP Request For Pricing.
The value in separating the RFPs into two parts is that you don’t have to waste the buyers’ time reviewing financial proposals from TMCs who failed the pre-qualification questions, while on the TMC side, they don’t have to decline to bid on your RFP1 because you are not tying up their pricing team and clearly not treating the TMC as a commodity.
The combination of the two RFPs should make it easy (and auditable) to down-select to the most qualified TMCs based on their unique proposal and competitive pricing.
If you are just focusing on fees, you don’t need an RFI or an RFP.
Two Sides, Same Coin
From a few decades of experience on all three sides of the table, I decided to write on this subject because we are receiving an unusually large number of RFP projects this quarter, and some of the TMCs have declined other RFPs where there was no consultant involved and they didn’t know the client.
I’m suggesting that we let the RFI RIP and convert the TMC RFP into two separate processes, holding back on pricing requests to only the most qualified bidders.
This creates an environment for less “no-bids” and ensures that TMC responses to an RFP are treated as legally-binding which greatly increases the “Credibility Meter” – which I used to call the “BS Meter.”
Andrew W. Menkes, CTC, is the Founder and CEO of Partnership Travel Consulting, a global corporate travel sourcing and strategy company. A business travel pioneer, Andrew has led technology innovation in the industry, including the first internet-based electronic ticket purchase. He was the first travel manager to be accredited by ARC to operate a Corporate Travel Department. He has been named Travel Manager of the Year, listed twice in the Top 25 Most Influential Business Travel Executives, and was the first travel buyer to be inducted into the Business Travel Hall of Fame. In January of 2025, Andrew also took over as President of Fare Audit, Inc. a corporate travel audit firm for airfares and hotel rates
