Where Fulfillment RFPs Actually Break

Most people assume fulfillment RFPs break because someone withheld information or acted in bad faith.

In practice, that’s rarely the case.

Across hundreds of fulfillment RFPs and informed by conversations with experienced operators, including teams at Izba, the real failure point is far more common and far less intentional:

Asymmetry in understanding between brands and 3PLs.

Both sides participate honestly.

They just aren’t solving for the same operational reality.

Why Fulfillment RFPs Fail (Even When the Data Is “Complete”)

Most fulfillment RFPs collect data.

Very few collect context.

That distinction is what determines whether a 3PL partnership succeeds or unravels six months after go-live.

The Brand-Side Problem: Averages Hide Operational Risk

Brands usually provide what they believe matters in a 3PL RFP:

1. Average daily order volume
2. SKU counts
3. Growth projections

These are reasonable inputs. They’re also incomplete.

Fulfillment fit does not live in averages.

It lives in the edges of the operation.

Examples that routinely break fulfillment partnerships:

1. A Monday drop where 40–60% of weekly volume ships in one day
2. One SKU that drives a disproportionate share of pick labor
3. A return profile that quietly doubles warehouse touchpoints
4. A marketing cadence that creates artificial peaks no forecast captures

None of this is intentionally hidden.

It’s simply easy to overlook if you haven’t priced, staffed, or operated inside a warehouse.

Unstructured fulfillment RFPs fail brands because they ask what the business looks like without capturing how it actually behaves.

The 3PL-Side Problem: Assumptions Harden Into Commitments

From the 3PL perspective, the failure mode is different.

The data is often present.

The assumptions applied to it are not.

Sales teams see “2,000 orders per day” and assume demand smoothness.

Operations later inherits a volume profile that looks nothing like the pricing model.

Unless someone asks the second and third question:

1. How concentrated is volume by day or hour?
2. What drives peaks and valleys?
3. Which SKUs, channels, or return flows distort labor?

Those assumptions quickly solidify into:

1. Pricing models
2. SLAs
3. Staffing plans
4. Capacity commitments

By the time reality surfaces, the contract is already signed.

The Most Common Fulfillment RFP Failure: False Alignment

The most dangerous breakdown isn’t conflict - it’s false agreement.

From the outside, these RFPs look successful:

1. Multiple meetings
2. Detailed spreadsheets
3. Long email threads

Everyone believes they’re talking about the same business.

They’re not.

Without structure, fulfillment RFPs create the illusion of alignment right up until go-live when operational reality asserts itself inside the warehouse.

Why Structured Fulfillment RFPs Matter

Strong fulfillment partnerships don’t fail because of bad actors.

They fail because the RFP process never forced both sides to model the same operational truth.

This is why structured, data-normalized fulfillment RFPs matter:

1. Brands surface edge cases that actually drive cost and service
2. 3PLs price and commit against real operating conditions
3. Both sides align expectations before contracts are signed

The goal isn’t more data.

It’s shared understanding.

That’s where better fulfillment decisions and longer-lasting partnerships begin.