E&I Members: Make Your Voice Heard in Less Than a Minute! Help us improve your experience-fast, simple, and meaningful.
Request for Proposal (RPF) processes and contract management practices are fundamental in education procurement. They shape how institutions demonstrate compliance, manage risk, and steward public and nonprofit funds. However, they are time and resource intensive, representing a significant challenge for procurement teams that are asked to do more with less.
This guide is designed to provide a practical, end-to-end view of RFP procurement and contract management in education, addressing RFP meaning, the types of solicitation documents in procurement, and why disciplined contract management is essential long after an award is made.
The RFP meaning in education procurement is more complex than just price competition. An RFP is a formal solicitation to evaluate suppliers based on a wide range of variables, including experience, methodology, service quality, compliance, and risk, in addition to cost.
In higher education, RFPs serve as the governance tools needed for solicitation in procurement.
They document:
The various types of solicitation documents in procurement provide you with defensible logic, supporting audits, public records requests, and board oversight. Think of the RFP as the blueprint for what you want and how you’ll score responses. Once a contract is awarded, this blueprint frames the contract, which formalizes obligations, pricing, performance standards, and compliance requirements.
Public institutions often rely on RFPs to meet statutory requirements. Private and nonprofit institutions use RFPs to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility and competitive due diligence in vetting potential suppliers.
RFPs are most commonly used when requirements are complex, unique, and high risk. However, not every purchase requires a full RFP.
Education institutions rely on three primary solicitation documents: RFPs, RFQs, and IFBs.
RFPs are used when qualitative factors matter. They allow institutions to evaluate approach, experience, service levels, and compliance, alongside pricing. RFPs can give you highly detailed control over solicitations but require significant internal coordination and time.
RFQs are more price-focused solicitations, often used when requirements are clearly defined and suppliers can be evaluated primarily on cost. They are faster to manage but offer limited flexibility if requirements change.
An invitation to bid is usually awarded to the lowest “responsive and responsible” bidder. It is commonly used in facilities and construction-related categories where specifications are standardized. IFBs require precise requirements to avoid disputes.
RFPs are often viewed as cost-neutral because supplier pricing receives the most attention. In reality, the internal cost of managing RFPs is significant.
According to the Professional Association for Cooperative Procurement (NCCP), the average cost for developing and managing RFPs can range from a few thousand dollars to more than $17,000, depending on complexity.
RFP “HIDDEN COSTS” | Simple Solicitations | Complex RFPs |
HOURS | 42.9 | 138.7 |
COST | $1,682 | $17,419 |
These figures represent staff time and direct administrative effort. They do not include opportunity cost, delays to savings, or downstream risk.
Because RFPs are so common, many procurement teams don’t think about the amount of time it takes, but the hours add up fast. A typical timeline for developing an RFP for education contracts might look like this:
Evaluation and governance phases consume the majority of effort. If you’re running multiple RFPs at the same time, these hours start to stack up, and they can slow procurement, legal, and finance teams.
Well-constructed RFPs reduce risk, shorten timelines, and lead to stronger contracts. On the flip side, mistakes in RFP development or ambiguities often lead to more work in evaluating RFPs or in higher education contract management. In fact, 20-30% of public sector RFP responses are rejected because of errors or incomplete information sharing. And the cost of managing contract disputes is staggering. It’s estimated that organizations globally spend $870 billion annually to resolve contractual disputes, many of which start with manual errors in RFP development or evaluation.
Strong RFP development in education contracts typically includes a consistent set of practices, including:
Institutions that apply these best practices consistently experience less rework and fewer compliance issues. These practices also make for smoother transitions from solicitation to contract execution. While they don’t eliminate the complexity, they can significantly improve the quality and sustainability of your procurement outcomes.
Once an award is made, the RFP contract becomes the primary control mechanism, and this transition is a common failure point. Contracts are executed, but obligations are not clearly communicated or actively managed.
Effective higher education contract management must ensure that pricing, service levels, and compliance requirements are met. Without this alignment across stakeholders, any value secured during sourcing can erode quickly.
Beyond fulfillment, higher education contract management is an ongoing process, including monitoring performance, ensuring pricing compliance, documenting changes, and planning for renewals. Contract management teams must treat this as a lifecycle responsibility rather than a legal formality. Strong contract management in education protects institutions from surprise costs, service failures, and compliance risk.
Each stage of contract management requires coordination across procurement, legal, finance, and departmental stakeholders.
The lifecycle begins with contract development and internal approval.
This stage includes aligning scope, pricing structures, service levels, and compliance requirements before execution. Procurement plays a critical role in ensuring contract language reflects sourcing decisions, approved terms, and institutional policy, while clear approvals and version control are essential to prevent downstream disputes or inconsistencies.
Once approved, contracts must be executed and properly onboarded. This includes confirming signatures, effective dates, and points of contact. Just as important, everyone involved in purchasing and finance needs visibility into contract obligations, terms, and performance expectations. Without structured onboarding, contracts can exist on paper but be all but ignored in practice.
After execution, institutions must monitor whether suppliers meet their contractual commitments. This may involve tracking metrics, such as:
As part of contract management in education, conducting scheduled performance reviews can help you identify issues early and provide documentation for suppliers to help enforce contract terms. Many compliance issues result from a lack of ongoing oversight rather than contract language.
Contract management also requires active financial monitoring.
Institutions must ensure invoices align with contracted pricing, discounts, and escalation terms. Without systematic tracking, pricing errors and off-contract charges can go unnoticed. This stage is especially important in decentralized environments where purchasing activity occurs across multiple departments.
The final stage of the lifecycle focuses on what happens when a contract approaches expiration. You need to decide whether to renew, renegotiate, rebid, or terminate agreements based on performance, market conditions, and institutional needs.
Proactive planning reduces the risk of auto-renewals that no longer deliver value or increase prices without an opportunity to negotiate.
Strategic sourcing connects procurement decisions to long-term contract performance, compliance, and institutional outcomes. In higher education, this means moving beyond one-off solicitations and evaluating how sourcing choices affect your entire contract lifecycle.
Effective strategic sourcing in education procurement focuses on several core objectives:
When strategic sourcing is applied consistently, it improves sourcing efficiency and contract management outcomes. You are simply better positioned to make smarter decisions, manage renewals proactively, reduce off-contract spend, and ensure education contracts continue to deliver value over their lifecycle.
Cooperative purchasing plays an important role in strategic sourcing by providing access to competitively solicited agreements that align with education-specific requirements.
When you become a member of E&I Cooperative Services, E&I handles the workload for competitive solicitation. As the only sourcing cooperative built for education that is member-owned and nonprofit, E&I Cooperative Services pairs deep sourcing expertise and category experts to develop cooperative agreements tailored for the education community.
E&I is made up of former education procurement leaders, who know how to:
As part of a broader strategic sourcing framework, cooperative contracts help you balance rigor, efficiency, and long-term contract performance across your procurement portfolio.
By leveraging cooperative contracts, you reduce duplication of solicitation efforts and legal reviews while standardized terms improve compliance and simplify contract management. However, this does not mean you’re giving up control. Many cooperative agreements are flexible, allowing you to customize what you purchase while still realizing the significant volume discounts.
RFPs remain essential to education procurement, but they are most effective when used intentionally. Contract management must be treated as an ongoing discipline to protect value and compliance. By combining institutional RFPs with cooperative contracts, education procurement teams can reduce their administrative burden, improve outcomes, and focus resources where they matter most.
There is no cost to become a member of E&I Cooperative Services and no minimum purchasing obligations. You can decide when and where to adopt cooperative agreements to save time and accelerate procurement timelines. Educational institutions can leverage E&I’s Economic Benefit ModelTM (EBM) that delivers costs savings in the range of 4% to 10% or higher in every contract. Members realize benefits from cost reduction, cost avoidance, and incentives and revenue opportunities.
Browse the extensive library of available, competitively solicited cooperative contracts at E&I Cooperative Services.