Manufacturers: getting specified before the RFP comes out

By the time the RFP comes out, the game is mostly over. The decision was made months earlier, in the office of the person who wrote the spec, and most manufacturers were not there. That window is what decides your sales, not the bid.

On this page

When the decision is made

This article is written for manufacturers and distributors whose products go into projects designed by third parties: construction, industrial equipment, building mechanical systems, coatings, systems. It is about selling upstream, not about bidding.

A project's real calendar is longer than the one a manufacturer sees. The designer receives the mandate, studies the options, writes the spec, obtains the approvals, then the RFP comes out.

In a scenario with fourteen months between the mandate and bid opening, the specification window occupies about six weeks, nine months before the RFP. During those six weeks, the person writing compares products, reads data sheets and chooses the ones they will name.

Most manufacturers discover the project when the RFP comes out. They therefore arrive nine months too late for a decision already written, and they invest their sales effort at the moment it is worth the least.

Who actually writes the spec

Treating the buyer and the designer as one person remains the costliest confusion in this sector.

The designer is an engineer, an architect, a technologist or a project manager. They do not pay for the product and do not order it. Their relationship with you is not commercial, it is technical, and they have no obligation to talk to you.

The buyer comes in later. They work with a spec already written, and their room to manoeuvre is limited to what that spec allows.

Two practical consequences. Your rep who visits the buyer arrives at the right place at the wrong time. And your sales tools, built to convince someone to buy, are of no use to the person who must decide to specify.

Gartner in fact measures that 67% of B2B buyers prefer a rep-free buying experience. One caveat on scope: the survey covers B2B buying in general, and it indicates a direction rather than identical behaviour among designers, whose relationship with suppliers follows other constraints.

What the specifier is looking for

They are not looking for the best product: they are looking to reduce their professional risk, and the whole file follows from that distinction.

An engineer who names a product engages their responsibility. If the product does not perform, does not ship on time or fails inspection, they answer for the choice to the client and sometimes to their order.

What they want is therefore precise: complete, verifiable technical data, up-to-date attestations and certifications, drawings they can integrate directly, confirmed availability, and a track record of comparable projects.

What does not interest them: your sales pitch, your competitive advantages, your company history. They do not read a product page like a buyer; they look for one precise data point and leave as soon as they have found it or seen that it is missing.

Your website bears the direct consequence: a product page built to sell fails with them, while a page built to be verified holds them. It is the same logic as product data, covered in our article on product data maturity.

The tools that make the difference

The first point deserves emphasis because it inverts the usual commercial logic. Supplying a guide spec means writing the text that wins for you yourself, and saving time for the person who decides. It is the best-returning investment in this entire sector.

What not being specified costs

The calculation runs on estimating time, and it surprises most management teams.

A technical bid means reading the spec, checking compliance, calculating quantities, getting supplier prices and producing the document. In a scenario, that represents about $2,800 of internal time.

Bidding on twenty RFPs where you are not specified therefore represents $56,000 a year, for a close rate that rarely tops 10% in that situation. The two sales won have to absorb the cost of the eighteen other bids.

Compare that amount to what producing the specification tools costs: a guide spec, clean technical files and up-to-date attestations represent a few dozen hours, invested once and reusable on every project.

The trade-off is never close, and it leads to an uncomfortable but profitable decision: stop bidding on RFPs where you are not specified, barring a specific reason, and reinvest that time upstream.

The approved-equal trap

The approved-equal clause looks like an open door, but it mostly transfers work.

When a spec names a product and adds that clause, it lets a bidder propose something else, subject to the designer's approval. In practice, the engineer must then verify your product, compare the data and stake their responsibility on a choice they did not make.

They have no reason to accept that extra work, especially on a short bid deadline. The approval rate for equals therefore stays low, and it depends almost entirely on how easy you make the verification.

What improves your odds, when you must take this route: a line-by-line comparison table with the named product, the matching attestations, and an answer within twenty-four hours. What reduces them: a sales sheet and a promise of equivalence without demonstration.

The lesson does not change: the equal remains an expensive catch-up, while the specification window remains the only route that costs little and pays durably.

This point sits inside the plan described in the marketing plan and its budget.

Frequently asked questions about getting specified