Breaking the Commitment Trap: Rethinking Project RFPs for Outcome Certainty
By Josh Cushner, Founder and CEO, Duplex Loop May 2025
Executive Summary
Most capital projects are launched with a Request for Proposals (RFP) that demands high levels of commitment—scope, schedule, cost—before the project is well-defined, and 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 Final Investment Decision (FIDs)—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 poorly constructed handoffs at interfaces
Ambiguous acceptance criteria and undefined success metrics
Underdeveloped risk identification and mitigation strategies
Overly hopeful resource capacity assessments and supply chain readiness
Large definition-debts in technical or operational risk lacking integration planning
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 for Readiness
Industry standard governance model with inherently high end-delivery risk
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 Consequences.” These include:
Definition Debt | Delivery Consequence |
|---|---|
Vague Scope | Effort creep, later rework |
Undefined Risks | Reactive problem-solving, later rework |
Missing Capacity Assessments | Resource shortages, cost escalations |
Ambiguous Tech Integration | Operational inefficiencies, later rework |
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:
Measuring Project Definition Completeness
Resolving Critical Uncertainties Before Commitment
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.