We Fix Broken RFPS

21 October 2026

Min Quals, Maximum Protest Risk

Click on image for better resolution

Want to hand a disappointed vendor the ammunition for a bid protest? Start with your minimum qualifications.

Nothing says “challenge this procurement” quite like an RFP packed with arbitrary experience requirements, unnecessary certifications, and qualifications that have little to do with actual performance. What was intended to protect the agency can quickly become its greatest vulnerability.

Minimum qualifications (Min Quals) should separate capable vendors from those who genuinely cannot perform the work—not eliminate competition before evaluation even begins. When requirements are overly restrictive, inconsistently applied, or impossible to defend, procurement teams aren't reducing risk. They're building it directly into the solicitation.

When Minimums Become Protest Risks

The trouble begins when procurement teams confuse what's essential with what's preferred.

Common pitfalls include:

• Restrictive experience requirements that exclude capable vendors without a defensible justification.
• Unnecessary certifications or equipment standards that favor certain suppliers without improving performance.
• Company-level qualifications that overlook the expertise of the actual project team.
• Vague or inconsistently applied requirements that invite challenges over unequal treatment.

Protect the Process Without Restricting Competition

Before declaring a qualification mandatory, ask: Would we genuinely refuse to award this contract to a vendor that doesn't meet it?

If the answer is no, reconsider the requirement.

A more defensible approach includes:

• Reserving mandatory qualifications for genuine deal-breakers.
• Evaluating desirable capabilities through clearly defined scoring criteria.
• Applying requirements consistently and documenting the rationale.
• Reviewing qualifications for relevance and competitive impact before releasing the RFP.

The Bottom Line

Protest-resistant procurement begins before proposals arrive. Requirements must be relevant, reasonable, and consistently enforced. Unnecessary barriers don't guarantee better vendors; they create opportunities for challenges that delay awards and undermine confidence.

Your minimum qualifications should keep unqualified vendors out—not give qualified vendors a reason to protest.



The fastest way to lose a bid protest? Write the winning argument into your own RFP.

Are You Buying Protection—or Killing Competition?

Think those hefty bonding and insurance requirements are protecting your agency? Think again. You may be paying a premium to keep qualified vendors out of the running.

Procurement professionals spend considerable time protecting their organizations from risk. Minimum qualifications, insurance limits, bonding requirements—each is intended to safeguard public resources and ensure contractors can deliver.

But here's the uncomfortable question: When does protecting the agency become protecting it from competition?

Just like overly restrictive minimum qualifications, excessive bonding and insurance requirements can eliminate capable vendors before they ever submit a proposal.

And that protection isn't free.

Those impressive insurance limits come with costs. Vendors factor premiums, bonding expenses, and compliance obligations into their proposals. Ultimately, agencies—and taxpayers—may be paying for coverage that exceeds the actual risk.

On November 19 at Noon CT, Ask the RFP Doctor® tackles "Bonds and Insurance: Are You Asking for Too Much?"

We're challenging some long-standing procurement assumptions:

• More insurance means more protection. Or does it simply mean higher proposal prices?
• Strict bonding requirements reduce risk. But are they also eliminating qualified competitors?
• Our requirements are standard. Compared to whose standards? Survey data reveals what agencies actually require.
• More coverage is always better. What happens when excessive protection limits competition without meaningfully reducing exposure?

The goal isn't to abandon safeguards. It's to establish requirements that reflect actual project risks, protect public resources, and preserve meaningful competition.

And just as with minimum qualifications, every mandatory requirement should have a defensible purpose.

If your bonding and insurance requirements haven't been examined in years, it might be time to question whether they're protecting your organization—or simply making procurement more expensive.

Join us November 19 at Noon CT. Grab your seat and find out whether your agency is buying protection it doesn't need.

Overprotecting your agency may be undermining your procurement