Responsive (formerly RFPIO), headquartered in Beaverton, offers their proposal management and automation software, featuring import and export, proposal knowledgebase and answer library, evaluation intake forms, and project management tools (e.g. Gantt chart) associated to proposal tracking.
N/A
RocketDocs
Score 5.2 out of 10
N/A
RocketDocs is an integrated sales enablement platform that helps clients of all sizes and industries. The platform of solutions helps companies create and respond to RFPs, RFIs, and questionnaires, as well as assemble and configure proposals, contracts, and sales collateral.
I didn't select a tool, so I'm not sure what else is available in the market beyond Loopio, which we used previously. It's been at least 2 years since I last used Loopio, so it might be inaccurate at this point, but Responsive's AI seems much better at providing a specific …
While others have had a good experience with Qvidian, we unfortunately did not. Our questions were never answered by our Qvidian rep, as we used it the platform had no AI capabilities, and we had very low usage. It didn't serve our needs. Responsive has been incredible in their …
Loopio wasn't able to scale with us at the time. It couldn't import 50% of the documents we were seeing. Responsive imports them all. The reporting in Loopio at the time was also subpar. There wasn't a completed status, so that was a showstopper for us being able to generate …
RFPIO has outstanding, responsive, helpful customer support located in the US in Oregon. Support techs go the extra mile to help with basic issues and functionality training. Same-day support response and problem resolution are the norms. The system is also very user-friendly …
RFPIO's licensing model is a bit different from others which worked better for our organization. Rather than licensing by a number of users, it's licensed by the active project. This allows us to add multiple users that are responsible for reviewing and updating content without …
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to use or evaluate other products like RFPIO. When I was hired, my company had just purchased our RFPIO software.
We are a small proposal team, with a large group of resources who support our responses. Responsive is easy to use for internal and external users, doesn't require extensive onboarding for new users, and is constantly adding new capabilities and enhancements to make the product …
I've only used RFPIO to compile responses to RFPs, and I've only used Scout RFP to respond to RFPs issued within Scout (i.e., the customer sent us an RFP without Scout RFP and asked the response and all communication to go through Scout RFP).
At the time, three years ago, we evaluated Loopio as an alternative to RFPIO. Loopio didn't have the same resources as far as dynamic branding, content segmentation ability and was less price competitive than RFPIO. RFPIO also has an unlimited user model where you are not …
I was not involved in the process of selecting RFP360 for our firm, so I am largely unfamiliar with competitors. I am, however, quite pleased with RFP360 as a user, and am confident that my colleagues who were responsible for making the decision were thorough and discerning.
None, RFP360 is the first and the last one we will use always. It is the best, I am not sure of other competitors but I have zero desire to even look for them. Everything you need is inside this one software, and if you have past RFPs you can juggle in, it is an absolute breeze …
It was the only one that had a content library that was separate from the main system. Initially, we were only looking for a content library, but we ultimately went with the full RFP360 system and will move to implement more tools in the future. We stopped looking at other …
RFP360 - We used this tool for three years and it was a great first step/upgrade from a searchable Google doc. We decided to start evaluating other systems for a couple of reasons:
RFP360 is an end-to-end tool for RFP requestors and responders. We felt they were more focused on …
PAMPS was the first and only content management system I have used. There is no need to look at the competition. I have been very successful using it and it has been successful in meeting my expectations. And when I am lost or confused, one call or email to the PMAPS support …
I did the vendor analysis and narrowed my selection to Qvidian (which I had used before) and PMAPS (which I had not). I've never regretted my choice. In ease of use alone, PMAPS wins hands down. We're able to use PMAPS when collecting intelligence from our Subject Matter …
I have not used any other systems but trying to complete RFPs without an RFP software is a nightmare in terms of keeping content current, consistent and organized.
I used Qvidian / Sant prior to purchasing PMAPs. However, I would honestly use Qvidian over this product. The features were easier to use and my efficiency was better.
Responsive is well suited for bid response teams and organizations that often respond to RFPs, but also for organizations looking to have access to information from their large library of documents, presentations, and images using AI and a chat bot that serves their internal organization to respond to clients faster and more accurately
I think PMAPS is well suited for Sales and Marketing team members. Having a database that houses all your approved content is a great way to ensure that your messaging is consistent in all your published materials, and a great repository of information. In the RFP world, time is limited, deadlines always approach faster than you want them to, and you are typically working more than one RFP response or project at a time. Being able to access one system for all your content needs is a huge time-saver
Having used two competing proposal management systems, I can honestly say that PMAPS wins hands down. We have streamlined the management of content so that we are always providing the most current, accurate responses to every RFP question our clients and prospects send to us.
Adding new content to PMAPS is a breeze! With a minimum of clicks, you can upload new responses directly into the database so that your proposal team members are continually reinventing the same responses.
With a continually growing proposal team, the ease with which new users can quickly learn how to use PMAPS is a huge plus. I don't have to devote tons of time training new users. It's a very intuitive interface.
No matter the format of the proposal (Word, Excel, web submission), PMAPS works with me to make responding *almost* enjoyable
Analysis Tools: although what is provided is quite good, there is definitely room for improvement. For instance it would be nice if it were easier/quicker for each evaluator to record their notes/comments when scoring, and to be able to search through those notes/comments later. Also, it would be really helpful to be able to annotate/mark-up the actual responses (highlight, underline, circle, call-out notes, etc.), with such mark-up tracked by evaluator, and with the option to hide/show mark-up.
Results Analysis, Reporting, and Presentation: in my opinion, this is the only area of weakness in RFP360. There are very limited options, after scoring/evaluation of responses is completed, for generating reports, graphs, charts, etc. to be used in evaluating results and presenting to the end client. I've always had to export the scores and use Excel to create the necessary visuals for final analysis and presentation.
Complex Questions: RFP360's ability to handle complex RFP questions (e.g. involving tables, charts, multi-part answers, graphics, etc.) is limited, and existing capabilities in this area are fairly cumbersome to navigate and use.
Beyond some of the basic functionality of enhancement suggestions, the number one recommendation I can provide to PSI is for them to internalize subject matter experts who know RFPs, the specifics/current state of proposal development, and most importantly partner with their clients to truly understand the need that's out their. Often, we get the sense that the focus during our interactions with the vendor is for purposes to up-sell or advertise enahncements for purchase rather than listening to a clients concerns and/or needs.
We'd be sunk without Responsive. The sales motion would slow way down in several places, and that's just unacceptable. AND I love the product. It helps me do my job efficiently. The Responsive team is GREAT. Support is getting better. The Product and Customer Experience Team is so knowledgeable and willing to help with new features and troubleshoot what's going on. It's an all-around great experience. Not to mention starting over - I can't even get my head around that.
It does what we need it to do; the price is right; and I like working with the people at PMAPS. They are very friendly and quick to respond to/fix any issues I have.
If I cannot solve a problem, then I reach out to Support and they are ON IT. They always solve the problem and get back to me immediately with an answer. Our customer support person who is assigned to us (we have had several) are responsive and helpful. We have asked them to sit in on meetings and help socialize the tool.
I didn't select a tool, so I'm not sure what else is available in the market beyond Loopio, which we used previously. It's been at least 2 years since I last used Loopio, so it might be inaccurate at this point, but Responsive's AI seems much better at providing a specific answer to your question and is less general.
Qvidian - in my opinion had less functionality than PMAPS; no way to track use. RFP Express - more difficult to maintain content; less filtering capability; formatting difficult/inconsistent when inserting into RFP.
With PMAPS WebPro, I am able to provide better customer service to other departments because I can quickly access our rich database to respond to their questions.
PMAPS WebPro helps me complete RFPs quickly because I have most of the answers I need at the touch of a button.