A promising opportunity still needs a delivery plan, not just a persuasive response. Treat Before Pursuing a Surveying RFQ, Build a Go-or-No-Go Scorecard as an operating rule: decide whether the work deserves your team’s time before assigning proposal sections. A structured pursuit review weighs fit, capacity, risk, and the chance of winning against the effort required to respond.
Here, RFQ means request for qualifications, not request for quotation. The Texas State University System’s professional land surveying solicitation uses that qualifications terminology. Read each solicitation on its own terms rather than assuming what its acronym requires.
Separate stop conditions from judgment calls
A go-or-no-go review is a structured decision about whether to pursue an opportunity. For a small surveying firm, adapt it into two checks: whether you can responsibly pursue the work at all, and whether this pursuit is a good use of limited business-development time.
Start with the actual solicitation and any addenda—documents that supplement or change it. Make a short list of submission instructions, stated requirements, and unresolved questions. Then identify your firm’s critical stop conditions. Construction pursuit guidance recommends allowing a critical failure to override an otherwise attractive total score.
- Required qualifications: Can you document what the solicitation asks for?
- Delivery feasibility: Can the proposed team support the work and schedule?
- Response feasibility: Can you complete a compliant submission by the stated deadline?
- Unacceptable exposure: Are there stated insurance provisions, contract terms, or other obligations your firm cannot accept?
These are screening questions, not universal surveying requirements. Confirm any licensing or authorization questions with the relevant state licensing board or a licensed professional, and seek appropriate advice on contract terms.
Before Pursuing a Surveying RFQ, Build a Go-or-No-Go Scorecard
Use the following as an illustrative internal worksheet, not as the buyer’s evaluation system. Mark each row Ready, Conditional, or Stop. Attach evidence to the rating. A favorable impression without supporting information should remain conditional.
| Screening factor | Questions to answer | Evidence to record |
|---|---|---|
| Service fit | Does the requested work match the services you intend to offer? Which tasks fall outside that fit? | Scope items matched to in-house capabilities or identified gaps. |
| Relevant experience | Which completed projects demonstrate the requested capabilities? Can you explain their relevance directly? | Project examples, proposed staff roles, and available supporting material. |
| Travel demands | Can you support the location without undermining other commitments? What travel assumptions remain untested? | A preliminary travel plan and its staffing implications. |
| Teaming needs | Would another firm fill a real capability or capacity gap? Has that firm confirmed its proposed role? | Partner responsibilities, availability, and unresolved commitments. |
| Delivery capacity | Who would lead and perform the work? Does the anticipated schedule fit their commitments? | Named personnel and a review of current workload. |
| Competitive position | What makes your qualifications relevant to this buyer? What do you actually know about competing firms? | Documented differentiators, relationship knowledge, and explicit unknowns. |
| Proposal effort | What must be created, checked, and approved? Who has time to do it? | A response task list, internal effort estimate, and assigned reviewers. |
This worksheet adapts broader pursuit criteria—project fit, geography, schedule, capacity, competitive position, and response effort—to a surveying practice. It is a decision aid, not a prediction of selection.
Make conditional ratings actionable
For every conditional rating, name the missing information, assign someone to resolve it, and set an internal decision deadline. For example, if delivery depends on a teaming partner, ask for confirmation of that partner’s responsibilities and availability before treating the gap as closed. That is a suggested screening practice, not a procurement requirement.
A weighted model is another option: give more influence to the factors your firm considers most important. Keep critical stop conditions separate, however. Strong project examples should not cancel out an unresolved inability to deliver. If you use a numerical passing threshold, establish it internally rather than presenting it as an industry standard.
Related reading: Before Demolition, Build Survey Monument Protection Into the Work Plan
Choose go, no-go, or not yet
Use Go when the fit is supported and delivery risks have workable answers. Use No-go when major compliance or capability gaps remain. Use Not yet when a specific change or clarification could make the opportunity viable; it should not quietly become permission to start writing.
For outside help, the University of Houston APEX Accelerator lists opportunity assessment, risk review, proposal compliance reviews, and contractor teaming among its assistance areas. Check its service area before seeking support.
For the next RFQ, have the proposal lead and delivery lead complete this worksheet together. Record the decision and the assumptions behind it before authorizing response work.
Featured image: Image by AymaneJed from Pixabay (Pixabay Content License)
Footnotes & Sources
- Go/No-Go in Construction: 3 Tips to Save Time and Capital, Buildr, February 23, 2023. — Structured pursuit screening, capacity tradeoffs, geography and schedule criteria, contract risk, and critical deal-breakers.
- professional land surveying services, docs.gato.txst.edu. — A surveying-specific example of RFQ meaning request for qualifications and the existence of an addendum.
- Go/No-Go Decision Framework: Free Checklist & Template for RFP responses, inventive.ai, August 7, 2025. — Weighted screening, compliance assessment, workable risk mitigation, and go, no-go, or not-yet outcomes.
- RFPs in Architecture: What They Are & How They Work | Monograph, monograph.com, October 30, 2026. — Professional-services screening based on relevant fit, relationship strength, competition, team capacity, and proposal proof points.
- UH APEX Accelerator – About Us, uhapex.uh.edu. — University of Houston APEX Accelerator assistance with opportunity assessment, risk review, proposal compliance, and contractor teaming.