The organization's trust in the grid is the product.

We charge for speed and intelligence. Never for access, visibility, or influence.

Advisors may pay for tools that make their own work faster — a reusable response library, draft assistance, alerts about new searches. None of it changes what your committee sees or how a response is compared. A free-tier firm can submit a response indistinguishable in quality from a paying firm’s. If your organization could tell who paid, the model would be broken.

Never sold, at any price

• Placement, ranking, or ordering in front of an organization
• Early access to a search before it is sent to firms
• The identity of an organization that has chosen to withhold it
• Any firm's submission content, to anyone
• Any influence on the comparison grid or the extracted values behind it
• Organizations still drafting a search that they have not yet sent out

That last one is the most tempting and the most important: a list of institutions actively drafting a search is the most commercially valuable data a platform like this could hold. Selling it would end the platform. It is not merely prohibited — it is structurally impossible, because no query path exposes a draft search outside the organization that owns it.

The comparison layer does not score or recommend

RFPFree extracts and compares. It normalizes fee schedules, lines up service models, and flags gaps — every value linked to its source. It will never rank the firms, name a “best fit,” or nudge a decision. Subscriptions on the advisor side buy no seat at that table and no preview of it. The grid is free, lives entirely on your side, and answers to your committee alone.

Revenue that is uncorrelated with outcomes

We do not and will not take a success fee when a firm wins a mandate. The moment our revenue depended on which firm you chose, every neutrality claim on this page would become impossible for you to verify. Flat, outcome-independent subscriptions are the whole reason you can trust the grid.