Clarify Assumptions About the Fee Schedule Before Completing an RFP Form

A fee schedule field that asks for one number, with no asset range, no vehicle, no service package attached to it, is an invitation to guess. The guess feels harmless while you are filling out a form under a deadline. It stops feeling harmless the moment your firm submits it, because now that number reads as a quote, not a placeholder. As the RFP lead, you are the person who decides whether that gap gets flagged before submission or gets buried inside a spreadsheet cell that nobody questions until a client tries to hold you to it.

Why this conversation goes wrong

Procurement teams build fee comparison grids that assume every respondent already knows the account size, the vehicle type, and the reporting package attached to the mandate. Sometimes that information sits elsewhere in the RFP. Sometimes it never shows up at all, because the person who built the form copied it from a template and never checked whether the fee section matched the rest of the document.

The RFP lead is usually the first person to notice the gap, and often the only one under enough time pressure to just pick a number and move on. Picking the biggest tier feels safe because it protects the firm from underquoting. Picking the smallest tier feels safe because it keeps the response competitive. Both choices are guesses dressed up as decisions, and neither one carries the authority of the person who actually owns pricing. Once that guess sits inside a submitted form, it stops looking like a guess. It looks like a commitment your commercial owner never made.

This is also a conversation that goes wrong quietly. Nobody yells at you for filling in a number. The problem shows up months later, when a client references the submitted fee schedule during contract negotiation and asks why the number does not match what your commercial team actually intended to offer at that account size.

How to prepare

Before you touch the fee field, read it next to the investment mandate and the service requirements sections of the same RFP. Look for any statement of assets under management, account minimums, vehicle type, or reporting scope that the procurement team may have intended to anchor the fee to. Sometimes the answer is there, just in a different tab of the document, and the fee section simply failed to reference it.

If the scope genuinely is not stated anywhere, write down the exact question you need answered. Not a vague note to yourself that says "check on this," but a specific question such as, does the procurement team want respondents to price this at a stated asset range, a stated vehicle, and a stated reporting package, or do they expect firms to state their own assumption. Bring that exact question, along with the exact form language, to your commercial owner before you bring it to the prospect. Your commercial owner needs to see the actual field, not your paraphrase of it, because the paraphrase is where assumptions creep in.

Decide in advance what you will do if no clarification arrives before the deadline. Some response rules allow you to state an assumption on the record, clearly labeled, so the prospect can correct it later. Other response rules do not allow that. Know which situation you are in before the deadline forces the decision for you.

What to say

Here is how that conversation can go with a procurement contact who wants a number today and does not want to hear about form gaps.

The procurement officer says, "Just use your largest tier. We need a number in the comparison grid by end of day."

You say, "I want to give you something you can actually compare against other bidders, and right now this field does not tell me the asset range, the vehicle, or the reporting package it applies to. If I pick a tier on my own, that number will not match what our commercial team would actually offer once they know the real account size. Can you tell me what asset range and service scope you want every respondent to price against?"

The officer says, "Everyone else just picked a number. Why is this taking so long?"

You say, "Other firms may have guessed, and that is exactly what creates mismatched numbers in your grid later. I am not trying to slow you down. I can turn this around within the hour once I know the scope. If you can send a quick line confirming the asset range and any vehicle or reporting requirements, I will get you an authorized number today."

The officer agrees to send a clarification note within the hour, and you close the conversation by confirming you will treat that note as the scope for the fee field.

Notice what this exchange does. It names the missing input specifically instead of complaining about the form in general terms. It offers a fast path back to a real answer instead of just refusing. And it never lets the pressure of a deadline turn into an unapproved number sitting inside a submitted document.

Mistakes to avoid

The most common mistake is treating the fee field like any other form field and filling it in without flagging the gap to anyone. A close second is flagging the gap internally but never raising it with the prospect, so the team ends up guessing at scope on both sides of the conversation. Neither approach protects you when someone later asks how that number got there.

Another mistake is picking the largest tier by default because it feels conservative. It does not protect your firm. It just produces a fee that looks inflated next to competitors who guessed lower, and it still was not approved by anyone with pricing authority. The opposite mistake, picking a low tier to look competitive, creates the reverse problem, a number your commercial team never agreed to honor.

Do not let the officer's impatience turn into your assumption. Pressure to move fast is real, but the pace of the conversation is not a reason to skip approval. You can move fast and still get the right person to confirm scope before you type a number into the form.

Finally, do not forget to keep a record. If a clarification comes back from the prospect, save it alongside the completed form. If no clarification arrives and your response rules allow a stated assumption, write that assumption into the response in plain words so the prospect can correct it, rather than letting it sit invisible inside a number.

How to practice and score it

This conversation is easy to rehearse and easy to score, because the behaviors you want are specific. Set up a practice session where the counterpart plays an impatient procurement contact who pushes for a number immediately and resists being asked to clarify scope. Score three things. Does the person name the exact missing input, the asset range, the vehicle, or the service package, instead of describing the problem vaguely. Does the person protect pricing approval, refusing to commit a number that nobody with commercial authority has confirmed. Does the person offer a workable path forward, a specific next step and a specific timeline, instead of just saying no.

A weak response either folds under pressure and picks a number, or refuses so bluntly that it sounds unhelpful and stalls the relationship. A strong response holds the line on approval while still sounding like someone trying to solve the procurement officer's problem. If you manage a team that handles these RFPs, this is worth running as a short scored exercise rather than assuming everyone already knows to ask before they guess. DealSpeak's Asset Management practice conversations are built around exactly this kind of scenario, so your team can rehearse it before a real deadline forces the decision.

Fee schedule gaps are a small detail on a form, but they carry commercial weight the moment you submit them. Ask the scope question before you type the number, get the answer from someone with pricing authority, and keep the record of what you agreed to. Once your fee assumptions are locked down, the next place to check your team's judgment is later in the process, covered in Run a Final RFP Review That Tests Evidence, Consistency, and Commitments, and if your response reaches the finalist stage, Lead a Finalist Evidence Review Without Inventing Committee Concerns covers the conversation that follows.