Writing an RFP Clarification for an Ambiguous Investment Mandate

An ambiguous RFP mandate creates a decision problem that requires clarification before drafting. If the core section calls for one duration range and an appendix implies another, the RFP lead should not silently choose the interpretation that makes the strategy look stronger. A written clarification protects both the prospect’s scoring process and the integrity of the response.

Capture the exact conflicting language, page references, and the response deadline for questions. Then ask the prospect to identify the governing requirement or explain how they want respondents to state assumptions. Route the question through the prescribed procurement channel and record any answer with the response materials.

On a clarification call, a procurement director says, “Why can’t you just respond to the broader range?” The RFP lead says, “We want our response to address the mandate you intend to evaluate. The main section states one range and the appendix states another. Could you confirm which governs, or whether you prefer us to explain fit against each range?” The director agrees to issue a written answer. The lead then updates the evidence register and alerts the investment team.

In a review exercise, give writers two mandate statements that differ by one material limit. Ask them to draft a clarification in two sentences without suggesting an answer. A manager should verify that the note names the conflict, follows the client’s process, and prevents unsupported fit language from reaching the submission.

Once the prospect answers, retain the clarification beside the final response rather than relying on a memory of the call. The record tells reviewers exactly which mandate interpretation governed the strategy description and supporting exhibits.