Master leadership training RFP development. Learn how to write effective requests for proposals that attract quality providers and ensure successful procurement.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Sat 10th January 2026
A leadership training RFP (Request for Proposal) formally solicits bids from providers to deliver leadership development programmes—enabling organisations to compare offerings, negotiate effectively, and select partners who can genuinely build leadership capability. Well-structured RFPs attract quality responses and set the foundation for successful partnerships.
Procurement of leadership development differs from purchasing commodities. You're buying expertise, relationships, and developmental outcomes that are inherently difficult to specify precisely. An overly rigid RFP may exclude innovative approaches; an overly vague one invites unsuitable responses. The challenge lies in providing sufficient structure for meaningful comparison whilst allowing space for providers to demonstrate their distinctive value.
This guide examines how to create leadership training RFPs that attract excellent providers and enable informed selection decisions.
Effective RFPs cover essential elements whilst remaining manageable for respondents.
Organisation Overview Brief description of your organisation, culture, and business context. Help providers understand whom they'd be serving.
Programme Background Context for the training need: why now, what's driving the requirement, any relevant history.
Scope of Work Clear description of what you're seeking: audience, objectives, duration, delivery requirements.
Response Requirements What you want to see in proposals: format, content sections, supporting materials.
Selection Criteria How you'll evaluate proposals: what matters most, how decisions will be made.
Timeline and Process Key dates, submission requirements, and what happens after submission.
Terms and Conditions Contractual requirements, confidentiality expectations, and other legal matters.
| Section | Purpose | Typical Length |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Context setting | 1-2 pages |
| Organisation overview | Provider understanding | 1 page |
| Programme requirements | Scope definition | 3-5 pages |
| Response format | Proposal structure | 1-2 pages |
| Evaluation criteria | Decision transparency | 1 page |
| Timeline/logistics | Process clarity | 1 page |
| Terms and conditions | Legal requirements | 2-3 pages |
Include:
Consider Excluding:
Clear requirements enable meaningful proposals without constraining innovation.
Audience Definition Who will participate? How many? What levels? What backgrounds?
"24-30 high-potential middle managers identified for senior leadership succession, currently managing teams of 5-15 people across diverse functions."
Objectives What should participants be able to do differently after the programme?
"Participants will demonstrate enhanced capability in strategic thinking, change leadership, and executive communication, with observable behaviour change validated by managers."
Constraints What limitations must providers work within?
"Delivery must accommodate participants across three time zones with minimal travel requirements. Total investment not to exceed £150,000."
Preferences What would you like, though it's not essential?
"We prefer programmes incorporating experiential learning and real-world project application. Virtual delivery is acceptable if engagement can be maintained."
| Category | Specification Level | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Required | Observable leadership behaviour change |
| Audience | Required | 24-30 middle managers |
| Budget | Constrained | £100,000-150,000 |
| Duration | Flexible | 4-6 months preferred |
| Delivery | Open | Provider recommendation welcome |
| Methodology | Open | Evidence-based approaches |
Too Prescriptive: "The programme must include exactly four two-day workshops covering strategic planning, change management, team leadership, and communication, with case studies from manufacturing sector."
Appropriately Flexible: "The programme should develop strategic, change, team, and communication leadership capabilities through approaches the provider recommends, with content relevant to participants' business contexts."
Transparent criteria enable fair evaluation and quality responses.
Provider Capability (25-35%)
Proposed Approach (30-40%)
Value Proposition (20-30%)
Cultural Fit (10-20%)
| Criterion | Weight | Sub-Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Provider capability | 30% | Experience, faculty, track record |
| Programme design | 35% | Approach, customisation, methodology |
| Value | 20% | Cost, ROI potential, efficiency |
| Cultural fit | 15% | Understanding, partnership, responsiveness |
Numerical Scoring Rate each criterion on consistent scale (1-5 or 1-10). Calculate weighted totals.
Threshold Plus Ranking Establish minimum requirements. Among qualifiers, rank by overall strength.
Structured Comparison Document strengths and weaknesses for each proposal. Compare systematically.
Clear response formats enable fair comparison and reduce provider burden.
Executive Summary One-page overview of proposed approach and key differentiators.
Provider Background Organisation overview, relevant experience, and financial stability evidence.
Understanding of Requirements Demonstration that provider comprehends your needs and context.
Proposed Solution Detailed programme design, methodology, and delivery approach.
Team and Resources Who would deliver the programme, their credentials, and availability.
Implementation Plan Timeline, milestones, and logistics.
Investment Detailed pricing breakdown and payment terms.
References Comparable projects with contact information.
| Section | Maximum Length | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Executive summary | 1 page | Key points, differentiators |
| Provider overview | 2 pages | Company, experience |
| Requirements understanding | 2 pages | Comprehension demonstration |
| Proposed programme | 5-8 pages | Design, methodology, content |
| Team | 2 pages | Faculty, roles, credentials |
| Implementation | 2 pages | Timeline, process |
| Investment | 2 pages | Pricing, terms |
| Appendices | As needed | References, samples, credentials |
Set reasonable page limits to encourage concise, focused responses. Excessive length requirements burden providers and complicate evaluation. Specify formatting requirements for consistency.
Realistic timelines attract quality responses whilst meeting your needs.
| Phase | Duration | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| RFP development | 2-4 weeks | Stakeholder input, drafting, review |
| RFP release to close | 3-4 weeks | Provider response period |
| Evaluation | 2-3 weeks | Review, scoring, shortlisting |
| Presentations | 1-2 weeks | Shortlist presentations |
| Selection and negotiation | 2-3 weeks | Final selection, contracting |
| Total | 10-16 weeks | From start to contract |
Provider Response Time Allow minimum three weeks for quality responses. Complex RFPs need four weeks or more. Shorter timelines favour incumbents and discourage thoughtful proposals.
Evaluation Time Plan adequate time for thorough evaluation. Rushing decisions leads to poor choices.
Presentation Phase Build in time for shortlist presentations or demonstrations. Provider interaction informs decisions beyond written proposals.
Holiday Awareness Avoid response deadlines during major holidays when key staff may be unavailable.
Systematic evaluation enables fair, defensible decisions.
Initial Screening Check proposals meet minimum requirements (completeness, compliance, responsiveness).
Individual Review Each evaluator reviews and scores proposals independently before discussion.
Calibration Discussion Evaluation team discusses scores, shares perspectives, and resolves significant discrepancies.
Reference Checking Contact references for shortlisted providers before final decision.
Final Decision Make selection based on comprehensive evaluation, not just price.
Include:
Consider:
| Mistake | Impact | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| Over-weighting price | Quality sacrifice | Balanced criteria |
| Halo effect | Unfair advantage | Structured scoring |
| Insufficient comparison | Poor decision | Systematic review |
| Ignoring red flags | Future problems | Reference checking |
| Rushing | Regret | Adequate time |
Specify required outcomes, audience, constraints, and evaluation criteria clearly. Leave methodology flexible unless you have specific requirements. Overly prescriptive scopes may exclude innovative approaches. Focus on what you need to achieve rather than how providers should achieve it. Allow space for providers to demonstrate expertise through their proposed approaches.
Including budget range helps providers propose appropriate solutions rather than guessing. Without guidance, you may receive proposals ranging from modest to excessive. Specify a range or maximum rather than exact figure to encourage competitive pricing whilst maintaining quality focus. Some organisations prefer not to disclose budget to avoid anchoring.
For significant programmes, invite 4-6 qualified providers. Fewer than four limits competition and comparison. More than six creates excessive evaluation burden and dilutes each provider's interest. Pre-qualify providers before RFP distribution to ensure all invitees are genuinely suitable candidates.
Two-stage processes (RFI followed by RFP) work well for complex or unfamiliar requirements. The initial Request for Information (RFI) gathers market intelligence and identifies qualified providers. The subsequent RFP goes only to pre-qualified candidates with more detailed requirements. This reduces provider burden and improves response quality.
Establish a single point of contact for questions. Set a questions deadline with sufficient time for responses before submission deadline. Distribute questions and answers to all invited providers to ensure fairness. Anonymous question distribution prevents competitors from identifying each other's interests.
Options include: extending deadline and revising requirements, negotiating with the closest proposal, re-issuing revised RFP, or reconsidering internal delivery. Analyse why proposals fell short—unrealistic requirements, insufficient budget, or weak provider market. Poor response may signal need to adjust expectations or approach rather than simply re-issuing.
Leadership training RFPs establish the foundation for successful provider partnerships. Effective RFPs clearly communicate requirements whilst allowing providers to demonstrate their distinctive value. They specify outcomes rather than methods, use transparent evaluation criteria, and allow reasonable response time. The procurement process itself reveals provider capabilities—responsiveness, comprehension, and communication quality preview what working together might be like. Invest in RFP quality; it pays returns through better proposals and more informed selection decisions.