How to Evaluate RFP Responses

What Are RFPs and RFP Responses?

In litigation, RFPs are requests for production. They are written discovery requests that ask the other side to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible items tied to the case.

That can include emails, contracts, invoices, photos, medical records, internal messages, and other records that matter to the claims or defenses.

An RFP response is the written answer to each request. It tells you if the responding party will produce documents, object to the request, or do both.

A response may say documents will be produced in full, produced in part, or withheld based on objections like relevance, burden, privilege, or scope.

Hence, it helps to start with a clear understanding of both the request and the response. You need to know what was asked for, how the other side answered, and what that answer really means in practice.

Some responses are direct, but others can be vague, heavily qualified, or written in a way that leaves room for dispute.

Since most RFPs are tied to facts that matter later in the case, these responses can shape depositions, motion practice, settlement discussions, and overall case strategy. They also help you evaluate what has been produced and what may still be missing for your clients’ needs.

What Does It Mean to Evaluate an RFP Response?

Evaluating an RFP response means reviewing how well the other side answered your requests, both on paper and in the production itself.

Keep in mind that you are looking at more than whether a response exists. You are checking for different RFP criteria, such as whether the answer is complete, specific, legally sound, and matched to what was actually requested.

That review helps you make informed decisions about what to do next. Maybe the response is solid, and you move on. Maybe it is packed with boilerplate objections, vague wording, or obvious gaps that call for a meet and confer or motion to compel.

The goal is to spot strengths, weaknesses, and anything that could affect the discovery strategy.

Some common RFP evaluation criteria include:

• Completeness
• Specificity
• Relevance
• Objections
• Responsiveness
• Privilege claims
• Timing
• Quality of production

A consistent review process also helps ensure consistency from one request to the next, especially when you are dealing with a long set of responses. That makes it easier to compare answers, track deficiencies, and decide which issues deserve follow-up.

How to Evaluate an RFP Response

Law firms may handle this review a little differently depending on the case, the team, and the stakes involved. Even so, there are a few core things worth checking any time you evaluate an RFP response.

We’ve prepared a step-by-step guide to help you get started:

1. Read the Request and Response Side by Side

Start with the RFP document itself, then read the response right next to it.

Look closely at the wording of the request, including definitions, date ranges, and categories of documents. Then compare that language to the response line by line. You want to see if the answer actually matches the request or shifts it into something smaller and easier to answer.

For example, say a request asks for “all emails, texts, and internal messages between January 1 and June 30 related to the termination of Plaintiff.” The response says the party will produce “non-privileged emails concerning Plaintiff’s separation.”

That answer leaves out texts, internal messages, and the exact date range. It also swaps “termination” for “separation,” which may narrow the scope.

In many firms, this step is part of a broader RFP process handled by attorneys, paralegals, or other evaluation teams, but the common goal is to catch mismatches early.

2. Check for Clear Answers and Specific Objections

Next, look at how directly the other side answered the request. A strong response tells you what will be produced, what is being withheld, and why. In contrast, a weak one hides behind vague language or piles on discovery objections without tying them to the actual request.

You also want to see if the objections are specific. General objections like “overly broad,” “unduly burdensome,” or “not reasonably calculated” do very little on their own.

The response should explain what part of the request creates the problem and how. That level of detail matters for compliance, and it also makes it easier to decide if the objection has any real weight.

A few things to watch for:

• Clear yes or no answers
• Objections tied to the wording of the request
• Partial responses explained clearly
• Vague or boilerplate objections
• Statements that leave production unclear

Plenty of firms have their own drafting habits, but specific objections and direct answers are still closer to industry standards than generic pushback.

If you want a better sense of what weak objections look like, check out our discovery objections cheat sheet.

3. Compare the Response to What Was Produced

Once you read the written response, compare it to the documents that were actually produced.

This is the point where a response that sounded acceptable on paper may start to fall apart. A party may promise responsive documents, then produce only a thin set of records that does not fully match the request.

For example, say the response states that the party will produce communications related to a contract dispute.

When the production arrives, you find a few emails and one attachment, but no drafts, internal messages, or follow-up communications. That gap may tell you the response was narrower than it first appeared, or that the production was incomplete.

This step is vital because written responses can be carefully phrased to craft responses that sound cooperative without giving you much in practice. Looking at the production lets you test the response against the facts.

It also helps you apply clear evaluation criteria in a more useful way, since you are no longer judging the wording alone. You are also judging whether the production actually backs it up.

4. Flag Gaps, Withholding, and Evasive Language

This is the stage where you slow down and look for what the response avoids saying.

Some answers look polished but still leave major questions open. You want to spot missing categories of documents, unclear withholding, and wording that gives the other side room to argue later that they never promised much in the first place.

Pay close attention to phrases that sound responsive but do not actually commit to full production. Also watch for objections followed by partial answers that never explain what was withheld.

Examples include:

• “Responding party will produce responsive, non-privileged documents”
• “Subject to and without waiving these objections, responding party states…”
• “After a reasonable search, no documents are presently known”
• “Defendant will produce documents, if any, in its possession”
• “This request is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome”

None of those phrases automatically makes a response deficient, but they should make you pause. They may signal limited production, hidden withholding, or an objection that says very little.

When you flag this language early, it becomes much easier to decide what deserves a follow-up letter, a meet and confer, or a closer review of the production.

5. Decide What Needs Follow-Up

Once you finish reviewing the responses and production, the next question is what actually deserves follow-up.

Of course, not every weak response needs a fight. Some issues are minor, while others can affect depositions, motion practice, expert work, or settlement posture. What you want is to focus on the gaps that matter most to the case.

For example, if the other side objected to a request but still produced the key documents, that issue may not need immediate attention.

On the other hand, if a response promises communications about a termination decision and the production leaves out internal emails, texts, or drafts, that is probably worth raising. The same goes for responses that mention withheld documents without saying what was withheld or why.

This part of the review is also a form of risk management. You are deciding which issues can wait, which ones need a meet and confer, and which may need court involvement if the problem continues.

Plus, it helps the team provide feedback internally before the next submission, especially if discovery deadlines are close or similar issues are showing up in multiple responses.

Make RFP Review Less Tedious With Briefpoint

Reviewing RFP responses often turns into more than reading objections and checking what was produced. You may start with one request, then end up tracing missing documents, comparing qualified answers, and figuring out what still calls for a follow-up.

Briefpoint fits naturally into that workflow. More than 1,500 law firms use it to handle discovery work faster, and it covers more than first-pass drafting.

Autodoc helps turn productions and case files into ready-to-serve discovery responses, which is useful when the volume of documents starts to pile up.

Briefpoint also supports Supplemental Responses, so when new information comes in or an answer needs to be updated, your team can revise without rebuilding everything from scratch.

If you want a better way to handle discovery work from initial responses through later updates, book a demo with Briefpoint.