Ed Dedman, Narrow Web Product Manager, Zeller+Gmelin Corp..07.13.23
As a long time ink and coating supplier to the label and package printing industry, I've had the privilege – and challenge – of responding to dozens, if not hundreds of RFPs/RFQs over the years. For the record, RFP stands for request for proposal, and RFQ stands for request for quote.
The purpose of this article is to explain how many traditional RFP’s in the print and packaging industry are potentially leaving money on the table for the companies that are issuing them. This article will seek to show how taking a different approach to an RFP can save you money in the long run, without jeopardizing manufacturing efficiency or profitability.
I’ve witnessed numerous RFPs, from a variety of companies, suffer from many of the same shortcomings, including:
I'd like to suggest a different approach, one focused on obtaining value in terms of efficiency, productivity, reduced waste, and operator satisfaction – and savings to the company beyond a few pennies per pound. An RFP resulting from a true collaboration between all departments involved (procurement, production, prepress, and management, for instance) offers the opportunity to fully understand the products application and reduce your overall costs and streamline your procurement process, just like a traditional RFP.
Let's look at a few of those factors and how they may influence your approach to RFPs:
Also, at the risk of upsetting some of those who are involved in establishing and finalizing RFPs, and since I am soon to be retired from the industry, there's something I need to bring to light. One of the downfalls I see so often with RFPs is that the procurement side of the operation is driving these exercises focused entirely on annual dollar savings. My assumption, based on experience, is that savings obtained through RFPs help fund or determine annual bonuses for those folks in the procurement department.
Unfortunately, too many times the result is that the products purchased, which provide short term savings, are typically lower performing products which the press room and other production processes often struggle to make work. From my perspective, it's a false savings to the company overall. Your RFPs could have been used to elevate the profitability and overall fiscal performance of the company far beyond those few dollars of savings by buying at a lower price per pound. What they may be saving on the books, they are wasting at the press, ultimately impacting the company’s bottom line.
In closing, my experiences have shown me that many companies can benefit from changing their approach to ink and coating RFPs to include the following basic factors:
The purpose of this article is to explain how many traditional RFP’s in the print and packaging industry are potentially leaving money on the table for the companies that are issuing them. This article will seek to show how taking a different approach to an RFP can save you money in the long run, without jeopardizing manufacturing efficiency or profitability.
I’ve witnessed numerous RFPs, from a variety of companies, suffer from many of the same shortcomings, including:
- They are lacking in product detail and usage information
- They don't have enough information from production to quote the proper product for that application
- They are often short sighted and focused on the here and now; how to save dollars today
- They miss the opportunity to add value through increased efficiency and reduced waste in the manufacturing process
- They don’t involve all relevant parties needed to better understand the end goals and what products are being looked for
Matte Shrink Coating | What is the gloss target? Is it WB, UV, or other? |
COBOND M-440/2754NCF/1000KG | This is a specific product code from one vendor, with no real description of the product. How am I supposed to offer a comparable product? |
DUAL CURE Hi Rub Matte OPV | How many rubs must it withstand? This affects cost. |
ORGATHANE M 1180 Adhesive | What's the application? What materials must it bond together? |
Varnish BF | Does BF mean benzophenone-free? What other properties must it offer? |
KP 5172 HR Overprint Coating | Another one I'm supposed to guess at? |
2103K LQ PT5P | Ditto |
Water-based coating | Could I at least know if it's gloss or matte? |
HR Hi Rub Matte OPV A098 | Does HR mean heat resistant or have a different internal meaning? What's special about the A098 version? |
I'd like to suggest a different approach, one focused on obtaining value in terms of efficiency, productivity, reduced waste, and operator satisfaction – and savings to the company beyond a few pennies per pound. An RFP resulting from a true collaboration between all departments involved (procurement, production, prepress, and management, for instance) offers the opportunity to fully understand the products application and reduce your overall costs and streamline your procurement process, just like a traditional RFP.
Let's look at a few of those factors and how they may influence your approach to RFPs:
- Product performance. If your RFP compares pricing between your current products and alternate suppliers or products, what is your current level of satisfaction with those current products? Are you achieving the run speeds you would like? Are the strength levels of your process colors and blends adequate given your anilox inventory? Are you achieving the adhesion and product resistance properties desired for the jobs you run? These questions should be a starting point, and any new products in comparison should be weighed in terms of potential performance gains they can offer. Achieving an additional 100 fpm run speed versus saving $0.25 per pound in ink should prompt you to do an analysis to see which benefits your company the most. Achieving custom match and Pantone color blends at a 3.0 BCM anilox versus a 4.5 BCM anilox is a significant cost savings in and of itself; but if you're going to save $0.50 per pound on average and have to run 50% more ink to achieve color, you're probably not saving as much money in your RFPs as you think you are.
- Print quality. Where is your print operation now in terms of graphic quality, color reproduction, throughput, and waste reduction? Again, setting benchmarks for those parameters allows you to effectively evaluate and consider improvements to those areas as part of any RFP you publish. If color blends are not coming in on color every time, and you're spending several hours of press time and hundreds of feet of material to get to color, that's a huge potential area for savings. And as we all know in any print operation, savings equals profit!
- Internal Collaboration. Once again, the collaborative effort to create an RFP that satisfies all parts of your operation will help you create a document that takes all of these factors into consideration, not just price per pound.
Product Description | Target BCM | Target FPM | Typical application | Special needs? |
UV Flexo Process Yellow BW7 | 1.8 | 350 | PS label, shrink | Hi lightfastness |
UV Flexo PMS 485 Red | 3.0 | 350 | PS label, shrink | Hi strength |
UV/LED High Gloss Coating | 4.0 | 500 | Labels - primary use | Workhorse ctg |
UV PP to PP Laminating Adhesive | 4.0 | 400 | Labels wet lam | Good bond |
UV Thermal Transfer Receptive Matte Coating | 4.0 | 400 | Labels | Most TTR ribbons |
LED Flexo Dense Black | 4.5 | 550 | PS label, shrink | Blue tone |
UV Tactile Coating | 25.0 | 250 | Labels | High tactile effect |
Also, at the risk of upsetting some of those who are involved in establishing and finalizing RFPs, and since I am soon to be retired from the industry, there's something I need to bring to light. One of the downfalls I see so often with RFPs is that the procurement side of the operation is driving these exercises focused entirely on annual dollar savings. My assumption, based on experience, is that savings obtained through RFPs help fund or determine annual bonuses for those folks in the procurement department.
Unfortunately, too many times the result is that the products purchased, which provide short term savings, are typically lower performing products which the press room and other production processes often struggle to make work. From my perspective, it's a false savings to the company overall. Your RFPs could have been used to elevate the profitability and overall fiscal performance of the company far beyond those few dollars of savings by buying at a lower price per pound. What they may be saving on the books, they are wasting at the press, ultimately impacting the company’s bottom line.
In closing, my experiences have shown me that many companies can benefit from changing their approach to ink and coating RFPs to include the following basic factors:
- Provide an RFP document with more detailed information on the application and process goals. This will allow your vendor to quote the best products they have to meet your needs.
- Use the RFP as an opportunity to improve your overall operation by reducing ink usage, meeting higher performance expectations, and improving the level of graphic quality you can achieve on press.
- Keep in mind, when constructing the RFP, that your ultimate goal as a company is to reduce waste, reduce time spent in set up and cleaning on press, and improve throughput in the press room, not just save a few dollars in annual spend (that you may waste in ink and downtime later).