Institutional selection guide
A strong RFP converts the institution’s governance needs into comparable evidence. The work begins before the questionnaire and continues through due diligence, selection, negotiation, and implementation.
Direct answer
An effective RFP defines the decision, requests comparable evidence, and gives fiduciaries a disciplined process for evaluating the proposed relationship—not merely the firms’ marketing materials.
Governance before questions
Before issuing an OCIO or investment consultant RFP, clarify objectives, decision authority, required services, portfolio constraints, committee responsibilities, and how success will be monitored.
Without that foundation, proposals may describe materially different mandates that cannot be compared fairly.
Four connected phases
Define objectives, governance, delegated authority, scope, constraints, stakeholders, timeline, and decision rules.
Ask qualified firms for comparable information about the proposed team, process, implementation, evidence, fees, and conflicts.
Apply consistent scoring, clarify material differences, conduct meetings and references, and test institutional fit.
Document the rationale, negotiate fees and contract terms, establish reporting and oversight, and plan implementation.
Fee negotiation
Comparable proposals create the foundation for negotiating fees, breakpoints, included services, implementation support, reporting, termination rights, and other material terms.
A major contribution
Alpha separates provider compensation from underlying investment and operating expenses, tests the assumptions behind each quote, and helps the institution negotiate the complete economics of the mandate.
Review the fee comparison framework →Comparable requirements
The precise questions should reflect the mandate. These categories create a consistent foundation for proposals, clarification, and finalist diligence.
Scroll horizontally to compare
| Category | Information to request | What fiduciaries should test |
|---|---|---|
| Organization and team | Ownership, financial condition, staffing, turnover, assigned professionals, responsibilities, and succession. | Whether the proposed team has the experience, capacity, continuity, and authority promised. |
| Investment process | Philosophy, asset allocation, manager research, portfolio construction, implementation, liquidity, and risk. | How decisions are made, challenged, implemented, and connected to the institution’s objectives. |
| Evidence | Relevant client examples, performance methodology, dispersion, risk, reporting samples, and references. | Whether the evidence is comparable, representative, and relevant to the proposed mandate. |
| Service and governance | Committee support, meeting cadence, education, reporting, escalation, customization, and oversight. | How the working relationship will function after the selection presentation. |
| Fees and conflicts | Advisory fees, investment expenses, other compensation, proprietary products, custody, transition, and performance fees. | The all-in economics and whether incentives or product relationships could influence recommendations. |
| Implementation | Contracting, onboarding, asset transition, legacy holdings, communications, data, and timeline. | Operational readiness, decision ownership, transition risk, and the institution’s required resources. |
Common RFP problems
An OCIO RFP should describe the institution, objectives, governance, delegated authority, assets, constraints, required services, reporting expectations, timeline, and evaluation process. It should request comparable information about the proposed team, investment process, implementation, performance evidence, risk, fees, conflicts, references, and transition plan.
The institution should first clarify which decisions it wants to retain and which it may delegate. If both models remain viable, the RFP can request clearly separated discretionary and non-discretionary proposals, but the committee still needs evaluation criteria that account for their different responsibilities and economics.
Scoring should reflect the institution’s priorities and be established before proposals are reviewed. Typical categories include organization, assigned team, investment philosophy, portfolio construction, risk, implementation, reporting, governance support, performance evidence, fees, conflicts, references, and institutional fit.
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, and accountability.
Related decision guides
Evaluate providers across organization, people, investment process, outcomes, service, fees, conflicts, and fit.
Explore independent OCIO search →Define the advisory mandate and compare the team, capabilities, evidence, service, and economics.
Explore consultant selection →Look beyond the headline rate to compare the complete cost and service structure of each proposal.
Read the fee guide →A better selection process starts here
Alpha can help define the mandate, identify qualified firms, structure comparable evidence, conduct due diligence, and support a documented selection.
Discuss an RFP