Breaking the Commitment Trap: Rethinking Project RFPs for Outcome Certainty

Executive Summary

Most capital projects are launched with a Request for Proposals (RFP) that demands high levels of commitment—scope, schedule, cost—before critical uncertainties are resolved. This conventional approach forces owners and delivery teams into premature overcommitment, increasing project risk, inflating contingencies, and eroding trust in cost and time estimates.

A more effective strategy shifts the focus from commitment-driven RFPs to definition-driven RFPs—where the clarity of scope, risks, and readiness is measured and validated before locking in delivery contracts. This paper explores why conventional RFP processes fail to ensure predictable outcomes, and how a definition-focused approach mitigates the root causes of cost overruns, delays, and unmet expectations.

The Problem: Premature Commitments in RFPs

In traditional project delivery models, RFPs are often issued as a signal of readiness to proceed. However, readiness is frequently assumed—not proven. Key dimensions of project definition remain vague or unresolved, such as:

  • Undefined scope boundaries and interfaces

  • Ambiguous acceptance criteria and success metrics

  • Underdeveloped risk identification and mitigation strategies

  • Lack of resource capacity assessments and supply chain readiness

  • Deferred technology integration planning

  • Sustainability goals stated as aspirations, not requirements

Despite these gaps, RFPs demand fixed-fee proposals, committed schedules, and firm deliverables. This dynamic forces proposers to inflate contingencies, make aggressive assumptions, or shift risks back to the owner post-award—manifesting later as change orders, rework, and disputes.

Root Causes:

  • RFP as a Formality, not a Filter

  • Over-Reliance on “Industry Standards”

  • Lack of Definition Debt Awareness

  • Misaligned Success Metrics

The Consequences of Overcommitment

When RFPs demand commitments before uncertainties are resolved, projects incur “Definition Debts” that cascade into downstream “Delivery Debts.” These include:


Definition Debt

Delivery Consequence

Vague Scope

Scope creep, misaligned expectations

Undefined Risks

Reactive problem-solving, unplanned delays

Missing Capacity Assessments

Resource shortages, cost escalations

Ambiguous Tech Integration

Late-stage rework, operational inefficiencies

Undefined Sustainability Targets

Compliance gaps, reputational risks

The result is a project that starts with a veneer of predictability but erodes into reactive crisis management. Cost overruns, missed schedules, and degraded quality are treated as inevitable, rather than symptoms of an avoidable upstream problem.

The Solution: Definition-Driven RFP Readiness

A Definition-Driven RFP Process ensures that commitments are only made once critical uncertainties are identified, assessed, and addressed to a predictable level. This approach focuses on:

  1. Measuring Project Definition Completeness

  2. Resolving Critical Uncertainties Before Commitment

  3. Aligning Commitments to Definition Maturity

Benefits:

  • Reduces inflated contingencies

  • Improves accuracy of cost and time estimates

  • Builds trust between owners, designers, and builders

  • Supports realistic go/no-go investment decisions

  • Prevents scope creep and late-stage changes

  • Aligns teams on outcome-driven success metrics

Conclusion

The conventional RFP process locks projects into high-risk commitments too early, without verifying whether the foundation for predictable delivery exists. By shifting to a Definition-Driven RFP Readiness model, project sponsors can significantly reduce delivery risks, improve cost and schedule certainty, and align all stakeholders toward shared success.

RFPs should not be a signal to proceed—they should be a test of readiness. Investing in definition before commitment is not added bureaucracy; it is the fastest way to predictable outcomes.