Institutional selection guide
Prepare, issue, evaluate, and complete an outsourced chief investment officer or investment consultant RFP using consistent questions, evidence, and decision rules.
Direct answer
An effective OCIO RFP defines the mandate and governance model, gives every bidder the same facts, requests comparable evidence, and explains how fiduciaries will score, diligence, select, negotiate with, and transition to a provider.
Executive checklist
01
An OCIO RFP should begin with the institution’s decision, not a recycled questionnaire. Clarify why the search is occurring, what a better outcome would look like, which decisions the board or committee will retain, which decisions may be delegated, and how the relationship will be supervised. If the committee is still deciding between non-discretionary consulting and OCIO, resolve that choice first or require separate proposals with model-specific evaluation criteria.
Assign owners for the data and validate it before release. A controlled data room, common assumptions, a single question channel, and written answers shared with all bidders reduce avoidable differences in proposals.
02
Use a responsibility matrix to show who recommends, approves, executes, monitors, reports, and can terminate each major activity. Address investment policy, strategic and tactical allocation, manager selection and termination, public and private investments, cash management, rebalancing, derivatives, securities lending, custody, proxy voting, reporting, education, and committee support.
Define terms such as “OCIO assets,” “discretionary assets,” “client,” “performance,” “all-in fee,” and “assigned team.” Without common definitions, providers can answer the same question using materially different populations.
03
Ask for concise narrative explanations where judgment matters and standardized tables where comparison matters. Require providers to identify assumptions, exceptions, affiliates, source dates, and whether evidence applies to the firm, the proposed team, a composite, a representative client, or the proposed portfolio.
Scroll horizontally to compare
| RFP section | Questions and requested evidence | What the committee should test |
|---|---|---|
| Firm and ownership | Ownership, financial condition, leadership, insurance, regulatory history, client gains and losses, M&A, litigation, and material organizational changes. | Stability, incentives, concentration, business risk, and the firm’s ability to support the mandate through change. |
| Assigned team | Named roles, biographies, tenure, location, client load, decision authority, succession, turnover, and time commitment. | Whether the people presented are the people who will decide, implement, communicate, and remain accountable. |
| Governance and service | Responsibility matrix, meeting model, education, policy support, reporting calendar, escalation, service standards, and examples of deliverables. | Fit with retained governance, staff capacity, committee needs, and the institution’s operating cadence. |
| Investment process | Objectives, asset allocation, portfolio construction, manager research, alternatives, access, liquidity, rebalancing, and decision governance. | How ideas become portfolio decisions, how they are challenged, and how the proposed mandate differs from standard portfolios. |
| Performance | Net and gross returns, benchmarks, inception dates, asset-weighted composites, dispersion, attribution, terminated accounts, and calculation methodology. | Relevance, consistency, comparability, survivorship risk, portability of results, and connection to the proposed team and process. |
| Risk | Risk philosophy, limits, scenario analysis, liquidity, leverage, derivatives, concentration, counterparty exposure, drawdowns, and escalation examples. | Whether risk is integrated into decisions, independently challenged, reported clearly, and matched to institutional constraints. |
| Operations and controls | Operational due diligence, valuation, cash controls, trade oversight, reconciliation, custody interfaces, audit, compliance, cybersecurity, privacy, and business continuity. | Control ownership, exceptions, testing, incidents, remediation, third-party dependencies, and evidence behind stated capabilities. |
| Fees and economics | Advisory fees, breakpoints, minimums, underlying expenses, performance fees, custody, implementation, legal, travel, and excluded services. | All-in cost using the same assets, allocation, services, and time period—not just the quoted advisory rate. |
| Conflicts | Proprietary products, affiliates, revenue sharing, placement economics, manager relationships, cross-trading, allocation practices, gifts, and other compensation. | Where incentives may affect selection, allocation, pricing, reporting, or termination and how each conflict is disclosed and governed. |
| Implementation and contract | Transition plan, legacy assets, trading, onboarding, resources, milestones, costs, termination assistance, data portability, and proposed contract terms. | Feasibility, disruption, one-time risk, accountability, exit rights, and consistency between the proposal and agreement. |
04
State the requested measurement periods, return convention, fee basis, benchmark definitions, valuation dates, composite construction, account inclusion rules, and currency. Ask providers to reconcile gross and net returns, identify whether results are actual or hypothetical, disclose dispersion and material account exclusions, and explain how the proposed team, process, and portfolio relate to the record shown.
Avoid ranking one return number in isolation. Review the underlying mandate, asset mix, cash flows, liquidity, risk, implementation, benchmark fit, and reporting methodology. Ask for source documents and explanations of periods in which results, risks, or implementation differed materially from expectations.
Provide the same asset base, target allocation, service scope, and implementation assumptions to every bidder. Separate the OCIO or consulting fee from underlying manager and vehicle expenses, performance fees, custody and administration, transition costs, legal work, travel, special projects, and other compensation. Identify one-time and continuing costs, excluded services, minimums, breakpoints, and changes under alternative asset or allocation scenarios.
Use the detailed OCIO fee comparison framework to build a common pricing schedule rather than comparing headline rates.
Request policies, sample reports, control descriptions, recent test results where appropriate, incident and remediation processes, and clear ownership across the provider, custodian, managers, and other vendors. For each material conflict, ask who benefits, which clients or assets are affected, how the conflict is disclosed, who approves exceptions, and how the institution can monitor it.
05
The example below is a starting structure, not a universal recommendation. The committee should change the categories and weights to reflect its mandate, approve them before proposals arrive, and distinguish scored preferences from pass/fail requirements.
Scroll horizontally to compare
| Illustrative category | Weight | Evidence to score |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate and service fit | 15% | Delegated scope, governance support, customization, reporting, client-service model |
| Assigned team and organization | 15% | Named team, decision rights, experience, capacity, continuity, ownership, financial stability |
| Investment process and implementation | 20% | Objectives, asset allocation, manager research, portfolio construction, access, implementation |
| Performance, risk, and reporting | 15% | Comparable results, dispersion, attribution, risk framework, reporting and data access |
| Operations and controls | 10% | Operational diligence, custody model, valuation, cybersecurity, business continuity, compliance |
| Fees and complete economics | 10% | Provider revenue, underlying expenses, transition cost, exclusions, breakpoints, other compensation |
| Conflicts and transparency | 10% | Affiliates, proprietary products, revenue sharing, allocation practices, disclosure and mitigation |
| References and institutional fit | 5% | Relevant references, service evidence, communication, culture, contract and transition readiness |
| Total | 100% | Weights should be approved before proposal review. |
Calculate weighted points consistently—for example, a category score divided by the maximum score and multiplied by the category weight. Have evaluators score independently before discussing results. Reconcile large differences by returning to evidence, not by averaging away a disputed fact. Preserve both quantitative scores and qualitative tradeoffs; the highest arithmetic total does not replace fiduciary judgment.
06
Written proposals should determine which firms advance; finalist meetings should test the proposed relationship. Give finalists the same core agenda and case materials, then reserve targeted time for provider-specific gaps. Require the actual relationship leader and key investment, risk, operations, and implementation personnel to participate.
Update scores only under a pre-agreed rule and cite the new evidence. Record why each finalist was or was not selected, the principal tradeoffs, negotiation conditions, and monitoring expectations.
07
There is no reliable universal timetable. Start with committee, board, procurement, legal, audit, and custodian calendars; then assign dates, owners, dependencies, and approval gates to each phase.
Approve objectives, governance model, minimum qualifications, conflicts, scoring, budget, and decision authority.
Validate the data package, draft structured questions, establish the provider universe, and confirm participation.
Release one RFP, manage bidder questions centrally, share clarifications equally, and control version changes.
Check completeness, normalize data, score independently, reconcile evidence, and approve the finalist group.
Run finalist meetings, references, operational review, fee analysis, conflict review, and legal diligence.
Document tradeoffs, select the preferred provider, negotiate terms, and approve the final agreement.
Execute the implementation plan, validate controls and reporting, and begin ongoing oversight.
Include time for incomplete submissions, clarifications, evaluator conflicts, rescheduled meetings, contract negotiation, and approval cycles. Avoid announcing an implementation date before the transition plan and critical dependencies are understood.
08
Require a preliminary transition plan in the RFP and refine it during finalist diligence. The plan should identify accountable people, required accounts and agreements, data transfer, custody coordination, asset mapping, liquidity, trading, taxes where relevant, private and legacy assets, manager notices, valuation, cash needs, blackout periods, reporting conversion, costs, risks, approvals, and contingency steps.
Translate material proposal commitments into the contract, implementation plan, or service-level schedule. Confirm how the institution can retrieve its records, continue essential functions, and receive termination assistance if the relationship later ends. Establish the first reporting package, committee review, exception log, and post-transition assessment before go-live.
09
Common questions
An OCIO RFP should define the institution, mandate, governance model, delegated authority, objectives, constraints, required services, reporting expectations, process, and decision criteria. It should request comparable evidence about the firm, assigned team, investment process, performance, risk, operations, fees, conflicts, references, contract terms, and transition plan.
The institution should first clarify which decisions it wants to retain and which it may delegate. If both models remain viable, request clearly separated discretionary and non-discretionary proposals and use evaluation criteria that recognize their different responsibilities, implementation models, and economics.
Approve the criteria, weights, scoring scale, minimum qualifications, and conflict rules before proposals are reviewed. Evaluators should score independently against cited evidence, reconcile material differences, and preserve the rationale for the shortlist and final recommendation.
There is no universal duration. The schedule should work backward from committee and board dates and allow enough time for data preparation, bidder questions, consistent proposal review, clarification, finalist meetings, references, operational diligence, legal review, negotiation, and transition planning.
Not necessarily. Fiduciaries should compare the complete service model and all-in economics, including underlying investment expenses, custody, transition, proprietary vehicles, and performance-based fees where applicable. Price should be evaluated alongside capability, fit, risk, conflicts, and accountability.
A better selection process starts here
Alpha can help define the mandate, identify qualified firms, structure comparable evidence, conduct due diligence, negotiate terms, and support a documented selection.
Discuss an RFP