Benchmarking, RFI, or Full RFP: Three Levels of Independent Evaluation
Not every situation calls for a full RFP — and running one when benchmarking would do wastes time and goodwill. The three levels below answer different questions at different depths, and part of our job is consulting with you which one you actually need before any engagement begins.
Fee & Service Benchmarking: Are Your Current Fees and Services Reasonable?
Benchmarking compares your current provider's fees and services against current market data — without approaching the market directly. It answers the foundational fiduciary question: is what we're paying reasonable for what we're getting?
The deliverable is a documented comparison your committee retains — evidence of the periodic review that participant litigation and the DOL's fee-reasonableness expectations have made essential. If the results are competitive, you have your documentation and you're done. If they're not, you have a documented basis for going deeper. Most benchmarking engagements complete in about 45 days.
RFI: What Does the Market Actually Offer Right Now?
An RFI gathers structured fee and service information directly from providers in the market — without the full commitment of a search. Providers respond to a consistent set of questions, so your committee gets a genuine market read rather than anecdotes and sales conversations.
An RFI is the right tool when you need current market intelligence to inform a committee decision: before committing to a full search, after a provider's ownership change, or when leadership asks 'what else is out there' and deserves a documented answer. Most RFI engagements complete in roughly 60 days.
RFP: Who Should We Hire — With Documentation That Holds Up?
A full RFP is a complete, independently managed search: evaluation criteria set before proposals are reviewed, a consistent comparison applied to every respondent, finalist presentations, reference checks, fee negotiation support, and a complete decision file your organization retains.
It's the right level when you're selecting or replacing a provider — or when the relationship is significant enough that the decision needs documentation that would hold up under committee, counsel, or regulatory review. Most full RFPs are started and completed within 90 days.
Which Level Do You Need?
The question it answers
Market contact
Deliverable
Typical timeline
Best when
Benchmarking
Are our current fees and services reasonable?
None — market data comparison
Documented fee & service comparison
About 45 days
You need documentation, or a basis for deciding whether to go further
RFI
What does the market offer right now?
Structured information from providers
Structured market summary
About 60 days
A committee decision needs current market intelligenceAre our current fees and services reasonable?
RFP
Which provider should we hire?
Full competitive search
Complete decision file: criteria, scoring, rationale
About 90 days
You're selecting or replacing a provider
The levels build on each other: benchmarking often answers the question outright, an RFI sharpens it, and an RFP settles it. Starting at the lowest level that fits your situation is not cutting corners — it's the cost- and time-effective path, and it's the one we'll recommend when it applies.
All Three Levels, Across Every Provider Type We Cover
Retirement plan providers — advisors, recordkeepers, PEPs, TPAs → /retirement-plan-providers
Benefits brokers and health & welfare plan vendors → /benefit-broker-services
OCIO managers for pensions, endowments, and foundations → /ocio-rfp-evaluation-services
DOL cybersecurity audit firms → /dol-cybersecurity-rfp
Actuarial services for pension plans → /actuarial
No Handshake Agreements. No Vendor Relationships. No Exceptions.
At every level, the evaluation is only worth what its independence guarantees. Culpepper RFP has no formal or informal handshake agreements with any vendor to look favorably on them during an evaluation — no referral fees, no revenue sharing, no relationships to protect. Complete independence is what ensures there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in the result.
Our References Are Our Clients — All of Them
Our clients engage us for independent evaluations at sensitive moments — often at the direction of counsel — so we don't publish named testimonials or case studies. Discretion is part of the engagement.
What we offer instead is stronger: 100% of Culpepper RFP clients can act as a reference, a standard we've maintained since the firm began. When you're seriously evaluating whether to work with us, we'll connect you directly with organizations similar to yours in size, plan type, and situation — and you can ask them anything.
Looking for a different evaluation? We also run independent evaluations for retirement plan providers ,DOL Cybersecurity firms, OCIO managers, actuarial, and benefit brokers— each covered on its own page.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Yes — that's the designed path. Benchmarking results become the documented basis for deciding a full RFP is warranted, and the work carries forward: criteria and findings from one level feed the next rather than starting over. Many engagements end at benchmarking because the answer was 'your arrangement is competitive' — which is a good outcome, documented.
-
Yes. The fiduciary standard is a prudent, documented process — not a mandatory market search. An independent benchmarking report showing your fees and services are reasonable relative to the market, retained in your files, is exactly the periodic review evidence committees and counsel look for. The date on it matters, though: documentation ages, which is why most sponsors benchmark every one to two years.
-
See our full FAQ for questions about the process, timelines, fees, and how we work → /faqs
“The investment committee is extremely pleased with the process, results…”
— Director of HR
Not Sure Which Level Fits?
That's the First Question We Answer.
Schedule a call with Jay to talk through your situation. Before any engagement begins, we review your objectives and recommend the most cost- and time-effective path — even when that's the smallest one.