In point form, simply summarize key insights on how to remove participation barriers in procurement from the below text at an 8th-grade reading level and provide brief supporting quotes with ID numbers:
Suggestions (From 2A.6):
0003: The whole notion that RFP is prepared based on the reliance of large suppliers rather than small business. From the very beginning this limits the ability for small businesses to participate directly. The majority of support in regards to supplier diversity is more declared than practically implemented, and feels remote from the procurement process. It doesn’t have any real impact on the actual process. The companies, from our perspective, are more interested in declaring their support than actually implementing it. With some exception like City of Toronto, from the perspective of the RFP there is no real difference between diverse or non-diverse suppliers. There is no push to implement best practices in supplier diversity. Compared to the Canada, the US is much more advanced in this regard. Many organizations don’t keep performance indicators or measure supplier diversity and executive support is lacking. Without this, there’s no interest in increasing the performance of supplier diversity.
0004: Previously buyandsell.gc.ca I found to be very unpleasant for visual, and recently it’s changed to CanadaBuys which I can’t say much about yet. BC Bid I don’t have a lot of experience with but it seems to be improving. It seems to be getting addressed, but the visual accessibility needed to be improved.
0005: Keep it simple, explanations and examples of process, fewer acronyms, more transparency
0006: Simple language, easy process, straight forward, user friendly interface, guided process
0007: I think more human connection to what we’re providing the service for, and that not one-size-fits all for the document.
0008: Processes could be streamlined (they already have awareness of information they ask suppliers for, i.e. who has security clearances at government sites)
0009: Simplification. There’s so much that is boiler-plate that doesn’t apply. Especially if it’s your first time around, it’s daunting. You’ll spend a huge amount of time reading through redundant information. The source is mostly organizational laziness.
0010: Consistency in process across organizations, plain language, easier time and effort
0012: Longer timelines, getting chances of success higher than a stab in the dark, that’s how it feels
0013:.Improve availability of RFP postings/distribution/updates. Reduce unnecessary admin burden or associated costs with producing RFP. Improve awareness in large companies as to complexities and needs of small business to produce RFP.
0014: They have to shorten them, make them more concise. Throughout the process they repeat the same thing a million times. It feels as if they think their applicants are stupid. There is very little offered for boutique firms. We can never go against the larger organizations, and it’s really why we don’t do a lot of RFPs. They don’t understand us.
0016: I would appreciate more specific direction, and not just general information. As an example, they’ll put out an RFP for sparkling wine. They don’t narrow it down to what (kind, price point). Then you call them at the end of the process and they say “well we had 100 applicants and only 4 slots,” but there’s no information available on why some were successful and others were not. More transparency on the scope of what they’re looking for.
0017: Getting feedback when you lose if it’s honest and specific, getting an understanding of what a winning application looks like. Being more clear about those expectations. Providing examples and a walkthrough on the portal of what typical successful applications look like, and some guidance through the steps. Now I can piece together what each section looks like and put the information together. (See transcript)
0018: There’s more than one site, more than one log in, there’s barriers to even getting that login to see it. Half the time the deadline is closed by the time you get to see it. RFP language is often very vague or cumbersome, and then you get to the question period and they don’t seem to answer clearly or don’t know what they need. When deadlines change that’s also annoying for me. I work very closely with deadlines, that’s how my brain works best, and moving deadlines is frustrating because I work very close to them.
0019: Going from my experience with government tendering, I think how a lot of governments and large corporations use a point system, having to hire the lowest bidder because they had an extra point because a superior service didn’t complete the application as properly. Reducing fluff/ process for the sake of process, having a more objective process than a process-based process.
0020: I would like to see somebody deaf involved to help design the RFP, and that’s why it’s not worth my time to be involved in RFP processes. Evaluation is often value based or low cost, and that’s not always a good thing. So when it comes to a point based system they need to add people with disabilities or award points for having added barriers to running the business.
0021: Another barrier is technology. Largely due to the variety of platforms that are used to access RFPs. There’s dozens of platforms, and on top of that there’s fees. Each one has its own tendering process. I’d like to see streamlining of technology, more detail in RFP, clients that are providing really specific information as to what they’re looking for, compensation for a response. I could spend 20-40 hours to prepare a response and I’m not getting paid for that time. When you’re a solo practitioner or small entity, those hours are money. I’ve seen many instances where the organization already has a predetermined bidder, they just don’t say it out loud. I’ve been on the winning side of that myself. That transparency is not there, there’s lots of people that happily try to work around the rules to get the supplier that they want.
0023: Yeah, I think it's just the ones that have been really, really well put together. There's amazing communication almost to the point where it's over, communicated, the expectations are very clear on why and how they're scoring, and they're transparent in the process - is it by panel? is it by a blind review on answers that are completely anonymized? So, however, they're gonna go about making that decision when they clearly and transparently outline that those are the best RFIs, RFPs and it makes the entire process less cumbersome. The ones that lack those. It's very, very, very slow and monolithic, and feeling so.
0026: The ability to educate. Example from recording, participant wanted more information on RFP and called to ask questions regarding what RFP was. The participant's questions were not answered and was informed they would need to write policies and procedures which they were not going to do. 
0027: SAP Ariba in terms of just getting notifications. That was hard. And then submitting the data was difficult just based on the blocks that it was broken into and just the formatting that had to go into submitting it. I kind of wish there was an easier way to submit a proposal. 


General Suggestions (From 3C):
0001: Human experience / interaction. "Feeling like I'm doing business with a person."
0002: Proof that LPOs care about diversity, be an environment that welcomes feedback and criticism. People with disabilities are afraid to ask questions
0003: I would implement best practices that are already implemented by large corporates in the United States. For example, Coca Cola, Bank of America. There is a huge gap between Canadian and American organizations.
0004: Speaking for people with visual impairment, any time they can do things to make formats more accessible is helpful. Laying out websites so they’re easy to read, work well with dark themes and screen readers. Providing alternate formats and selecting formats that are accessible to read with different formats. Making page layouts with a more linear formats, very top to bottom and less left-to-right would be very helpful.
0005: Human experience, compassion regarding neurodiversity and invisible disabilities Supplier diversity specifically – connecting with more champions of diversity Meaningful effort towards a more just and equitable society, less tokenism.
0006: Ease of access, alternative formats, reduce stigma and attitudinal barriers. Increase collaboration between able-bodied and people with disabilities
0007: To have different versions of the RFP process for different walks of life. Someone is maybe stronger to do a written RFP and some a stronger to do a verbal RFP, it all depends on the individual. Not one-shoe-fits-all on the RFP because maybe they’re missing out on a good supplier.
0008: Lessening the manual input function, providing extra financial support incentives to navigate legal government tendering documents, making it more effective to have discussions between technical and contract authorities and suppliers
0009: Having a process for different values and levels of complexity. Sizes and terms can be intimidating to everybody. Having some sort of infrastructure or support for companies that are starting out and don’t understand the process. Veterans specifically, when they leave the military they’re looking for a second career. They have a career support network but not for the entrepreneurial side. Having some sort of toolbox to prepare you for what you can and can't do as an entrepreneur would be invaluable.
0010: Simplify process from start to finish, plain language, open communication
0011: Ensure you're a diverse supplier
0012: Promoting that they see disability as part of diversity. With marketing with some large organizations it’s still very much that diversity is race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability still isn’t there.
0013: Procurers have a strong bias towards businesses they already understand, but oftentimes businesses run by people with disabilities don’t meet that mold and haven’t been given a chance. Procurers place disproportionate value on an antiquated way of doing things resulting in contradictory messages between, “We care” and, “We’ll leave it up to someone else to figure out”. Disabled can be suppliers, not just consumers.
0014: What I would do is educate far more. The education and the acceptance of the disabled, it’s bizarre that we have to do this and speak and feel as if we’re hitting brick walls. You have to deal with people like engineers who have no idea where to put a button (in reference to power door buttons). The people who live it and breathe it and work in (accessibility) every day will assist you the best. Anecdote: I actually parked in a parking lot going to the LCBO in a handicap spot, and I get my walker and all that, and I’m walking out to get to the door and a man looks at me and says “hey lady, it must be a mental handicap, right?”
0015: Transparency, easy to understand. In my case, understanding that I can’t necessarily work every single day, many hours a day. Understanding that they have to realize they’re working with someone with a [disability].
0016: Adding disability to the weight of their selection process and more personalized guidance. The work is very paperwork centric. With my hands I don’t do well sitting at a desk all day, and they’ve made it so that it’s the only way it can be done.
0017: Explain things clearly and slowly using methods that aren’t just text, like video.
0018: To let people know that it’s even a possibility out there. I’ve sent RFPs that I’ve seen to other business owners, I still keep track of some, and she didn’t even know that these existed. The education part where they should have some awareness, but also making it somewhat easier for people to be able to understand the process, access it and even do it. It’s a lot of time spent trying to figure it out or get access to it without ever knowing if you’re going to get anything out of it in the end
0019: Some sort of a fulfillment officer. Somebody who can guide someone who is green through the process. Somebody who’s disabled, especially if there’s an effect on comprehension or cognitive function, or somebody who has anxiety issues might take one look at it and say “I’m not going through this.” Having a friendly voice who can guide somebody through the process when somebody is green or have disabilities would really benefit.
0020: Purchasers need to make their processes more accessible, they need to work with more smaller companies without the RFP. You should be able to get direct awards, that’s really a focus, and then when they become strong and build a relationship they can expand into a general RFP and spend money on it. Starting with a pilot is really key and you can bid later. Adding in a point system for disabled suppliers like the United States has a model for. Language can be complicated and people don’t have the time or bandwidth to read everything from beginning to end, particularly with a start deadline, so sometimes you have to hire people who can fill out RFPs and they have to be paid an average of $3,500 to $5,000 per RFP which is very expensive for a small business.
0021: I’d probably say compensation for bids. I think that can be a huge barrier. 20 hours of a persons time when you’re competing against large organizations, you really have to question whether it’s worth the investment. If more were compensated for that time, probably a lot more would participate.
0022: You need to ensure that you have people strong in the points that you are weak. I’ve seen some organizations have a tutorial for how to use their tendering platform, but they aren’t always right in your face. Having those right at the front and easy enough to go through would be a benefit.
0023: It needs to be less convoluted. If it can be right there in front of me with clear breakdown, clear everything, it just makes it more fair. It’s about getting the best vendor that meets that criteria to get the best business.
0026: For people with disabilities, and with respect to people who are deaf, translate the content into ASL or LSQ or provide other ways of providing the information in ASL and LSQ.
0027: I mean, I don't recall now, maybe if I anwered a question during that process that I had a disability maybe information would have been presented to me differently, but you know for somebody with a seeing disability or a learning disability I don't know how they would have completed that RFP through Ariba.
0028: I haven't thought through that a whole lot, so I'm not sure I can give you a short answer. To be more inclusive to disability, community. Because if it's disability, there's a degree of being disabled, whether it is neuro, or physical. Right, so if it's in the ad agency business when this, you know, time and deadline is of essence. If being fast is it's is a priority. What is the physical or neuro, disability. Plus and minus that end result.