Last Updated: October 23, 2026
Quick Summary
A request for proposal for infrastructure advisory services is a structured procurement document that defines the scope, evaluation criteria, and contractual terms under which a sponsor selects an external advisor. Publish selection criteria in full with explicit weightings, and require pricing broken down by phase and named role so proposals can be compared like-for-like.
- Name each deliverable and state what complete looks like so proposals are comparable.
- Require a redacted transaction list with closing dates, roles, and financing outcomes.
- Use a prequalification round to narrow the field before full proposals are invited.
- Weighting price above roughly a third of marks selects the lowest-cost proposal, not the most capable.
- Require pricing by phase and named role rather than a single lump-sum figure.
Table of Contents
- Why a Request for Proposal for Infrastructure Advisory Services Sets the Project’s Course
- Defining the Infrastructure Advisory Scope of Work
- Infrastructure Advisory Firm Selection Criteria
- PPP Advisory Services Procurement: Structuring the Solicitation
- Using an Infrastructure Consulting Proposal Template
- Submission Requirements, Pricing, and Evaluation Process
- Common Procurement Mistakes and Risk Controls
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why a Request for Proposal for Infrastructure Advisory Services Sets the Project’s Course
A request for proposal for infrastructure advisory services is a structured procurement document that defines the scope, evaluation criteria, and contractual terms under which a government or project sponsor selects an external advisor. Get it right and you attract serious firms with relevant delivery records.
At Russell Duke, we have seen the difference between a solicitation that produces executable advisory mandates and one that produces strategy documents nobody acts on. It usually comes down to how precisely the RFP describes the outcome the sponsor actually needs.
The stakes are not abstract. Infrastructure programs fail at the preparation stage far more often than at the construction stage, and the advisory mandate is where preparation is either resourced properly or quietly abandoned.
An RFP’s job is not to describe a consultant. It is to describe the decision the sponsor needs to be able to make, and then to test which firm can get them there.
Defining the Infrastructure Advisory Scope of Work
The infrastructure advisory scope of work is the section that determines whether your solicitation is answerable. It should state the project or program context, the decisions the advisor must support, and the outputs the sponsor expects to hold at the end of the engagement.
Vague scope language is the single most common defect we encounter. “Provide advisory support to the Ministry on infrastructure financing” tells a bidder nothing and invites a proposal that is priced against an imagined mandate. Specificity is what makes proposals comparable.
Core deliverables to specify
Name each deliverable and state what “complete” looks like. A workable set for most mandates includes:
- A project or program diagnostic, including an assessment of the legal, regulatory, and institutional constraints on private capital participation.
- A financing structure options paper, with a recommended structure and the reasoning behind it.
- A bankability assessment covering revenue, affordability, and risk allocation.
- A procurement strategy and draft transaction documents for the recommended route.
- A stakeholder and approvals roadmap identifying every consent required and who owns it.
- A capacity transfer plan describing what the sponsor’s own team will be able to do at handover.
Tasks and methodology
Ask bidders to describe how they will do the work, not just what they will produce. A credible methodology section addresses data collection, consultation with the sponsor’s counterparties, the analytical approach to risk allocation, and how the advisor will handle the political cycle.
Require a work plan with phases, milestones, and named personnel against each phase. This is where you learn whether the partner who impressed you at the briefing will actually be in the room in month four.
Infrastructure Advisory Firm Selection Criteria
Selection criteria should be published in full, weighted explicitly, and applied without adjustment after the deadline. Bidders price and staff their proposals against the criteria they can see, so ambiguity here is expensive for everyone.
The criteria that matter most for infrastructure mandates are: demonstrated transaction experience in comparable sectors and jurisdictions, the named team’s individual track record, the quality of the proposed methodology, and commercial terms.
Require bidders to submit a redacted transaction list with closing dates, their role, and the financing outcome. Firms that closed transactions can evidence it; firms that only advised on strategy will produce a list of studies.
Evaluation scorecard and sample weighting
A published scorecard removes most post-award challenge risk and makes consensus scoring far faster. A representative weighting:
| Criterion | Weight | What evaluators should actually test |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant transaction experience | 30 | Closed deals in comparable sector and jurisdiction |
| Named team qualifications | 25 | Individual CVs matched to defined roles |
| Methodology and work plan | 20 | Realism of phasing, milestones, and dependencies |
| Understanding of project context | 15 | Quality of the diagnostic in the technical proposal |
| Commercial terms | 10 | Fee structure, resourcing, and value for the scope |
Score each criterion on a defined scale, require written justification for any score at either extreme, and hold a moderation session before the panel signs off. Price should be scored, not weighted so heavily that it overwhelms technical quality.
Weighting price above roughly a third of total available marks reliably selects the lowest-cost proposal rather than the most capable one. The saving at award is usually consumed by rework within the first phase.
PPP Advisory Services Procurement: Structuring the Solicitation
PPP advisory services procurement differs from general consulting procurement in one important respect: the advisor’s work product becomes the basis of a long-term contractual relationship between the public and private sectors.
Structure the solicitation in stages. An expression of interest or prequalification round narrows the field on stated minimum criteria before full proposals are invited.
Set the contract term explicitly and state renewal options, if any, with the conditions attached to them.
Infrastructure-specific scope and deliverables
Generic advisory scope language underserves infrastructure mandates. The scope should require the advisor to address the infrastructure-specific decisions the sponsor faces. A workable set of infrastructure advisory deliverables includes:
- Asset and network assessment, condition, capacity, and performance of existing assets, and the gap against service demand.
- Capital planning and project prioritization, a ranked pipeline with screening criteria, dependencies, and readiness assessment.
- Resilience and climate risk review, exposure of the asset base to physical and transition risk, and adaptation options with cost implications.
- Financing and funding strategy, the mix of public funding, private capital, and user charges, with an affordability test.
- Procurement and delivery model options, traditional, design-build, PPP, or hybrid, with a recommendation and reasoning.
- Institutional and governance assessment, the sponsor’s capacity to procure, contract, and manage delivery, and the capacity transfer plan.
Require bidders to state how they will sequence these deliverables and what data they need from the sponsor to complete each one. That forces realism into the work plan and surfaces dependencies before award.
Ask bidders to identify the three assumptions most likely to invalidate their proposed approach. The answers reveal whether they understand the project context or are recycling a template.
For context on how private capital assesses sovereign programs, the World Bank’s guidance on infrastructure finance and PPPs is a useful reference point for scope design.
Using an Infrastructure Consulting Proposal Template
An infrastructure consulting proposal template is a pre-approved structure that bidders must follow when responding. Mandating it is one of the cheapest improvements a sponsor can make to a solicitation.
Standardize the response into labeled sections: technical proposal, team and CVs, transaction list, work plan, commercial proposal, and compliance declarations. Cap page counts. Require the commercial proposal in a separately sealed envelope or file so technical evaluation is genuinely blind on price.
A short submission checklist, published with the RFP, prevents the disqualifications that sour otherwise competitive procurements:
- Signed and dated letter of transmittal
- Confirmation of registration and any required licensing
- Technical proposal within the stated page limit
- Named personnel with signed availability confirmations
Submission Requirements, Pricing, and Evaluation Process
Publish the deadline, the delivery method, and the exact format required, then hold to all three.
On pricing, require a breakdown rather than a single figure: fees by phase, reimbursables, and the rate card for named personnel. Ask bidders to state assumptions that would change the price, and to identify what is excluded.
Publish the evaluation timetable alongside the RFP: question deadline, response to questions, submission deadline, evaluation period, and anticipated award date.
How to compare advisory proposals beyond price
Price is the easiest variable to compare and the least reliable indicator of value in an infrastructure advisory mandate. A structured comparison should test five things:
- Independence and conflicts. Has the firm worked for a bidder, lender, or contractor on the same transaction? The RFP should require disclosure and state exclusions.
- Relevant project experience. Closed transactions in comparable sectors and jurisdictions, with the bidder’s role and the financing outcome stated. Strategy studies are not transaction experience.
- Risk methods. How the advisor identifies, allocates, and prices risk, and how they handle political and regulatory risk that cannot be contracted away.
- Implementation capability. Whether the advisor can support procurement, negotiation, and financial close, not just produce a report.
A simple comparison matrix, criteria down the side, bidders across the top, scores and written justification in each cell, makes the panel’s reasoning transparent and defensible if a losing bidder challenges the award.
A common pattern is to weight price heavily to demonstrate value for money, then discover at award that the lowest-priced proposal assumed a scope the sponsor did not intend. Clarify assumptions and exclusions before scoring, not after.
Require pricing by phase and by named role. A single lump-sum figure cannot be evaluated for value, and it cannot be managed after award.
Common Procurement Mistakes and Risk Controls
The mistakes repeat across jurisdictions. The most damaging is an RFP written around a preferred firm’s capabilities, which narrows competition and often fails a challenge.
Others worth controlling for:
- No conflict of interest provisions. Advisors who have worked for a bidder on the same transaction should be excluded, and the RFP must say so.
- Unstated evaluation method. If the panel’s scoring approach is not published, losing bidders will assume the worst.
- Unrealistic timetable. Compressing a complex mandate into an implausible delivery window selects for optimistic proposals, not capable ones.
- No handover requirement. Without a defined exit and capacity transfer, the sponsor becomes permanently dependent on the advisor.
On governance after award, hold the advisor to the work plan with milestone-based reporting to a named sponsor-side owner. For a broader view of how advisory mandates are assessed against delivery, the OECD’s work on infrastructure governance sets out useful principles for public sponsors.
Most infrastructure programs do not fail for lack of ambition.
If you are preparing a solicitation for a sovereign program or a large-scale development project, Russell Duke works with governments, institutions, and sponsors to design advisory mandates that hold up under evaluation and produce executable programs.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to issue an RFP for infrastructure advisory services?
The cost of running a procurement exercise depends on the complexity of the scope, the number of bidders, and the legal and technical reviewers involved. Rather than budgeting a fixed figure, sponsors should plan for document drafting, legal review, evaluation committee time, and any independent probity oversight. Advisory fees themselves are set by bidders in their proposals, and pricing should be requested as a breakdown of phases, personnel, and reimbursable expenses so the evaluation committee can compare offers on a like-for-like basis.
What should be included in a request for proposal for infrastructure advisory services?
A complete RFP covers the project background and objectives, the infrastructure advisory scope of work with named deliverables, the required qualifications and technical expertise, the evaluation criteria and their weighting, submission instructions and deadline, and the proposed contract term with renewal options. It should also state compliance and insurance requirements, the contact point for questions, and how sealed proposals will be opened and assessed. Clear scope language is the single biggest factor in receiving comparable, usable proposals.
How do you evaluate proposals from infrastructure advisory firms beyond price?
Price alone rarely identifies the strongest advisor. Use a weighted scorecard that separates technical quality from commercial terms, scoring the firm’s relevant transaction experience, the named team’s track record, the work plan and methodology, and the realism of the schedule. Reference checks on comparable mandates matter more than firm-wide credentials. When comparing advisory proposals, ask each bidder to describe how they would approach the specific project rather than submitting a generic capability statement.
What qualifications should an infrastructure advisory firm have?
Look for demonstrated experience on projects of similar scale and sector, a named engagement team with relevant transaction and structuring background, familiarity with PPP and capital markets, and a clear understanding of political and execution risk. Certifications and registrations should be verified against the requirements in the solicitation. Firms should also show how they will transfer knowledge to the sponsor’s own staff, because advisory value is highest when the client’s financial capacity grows alongside the project.
