How many hotels should you RFP? Last updated 2026-05-06
The "more is better" instinct in RFPs is wrong. The "fewer is faster" instinct is also wrong. There is an optimal range, and most planners we work with land outside it. Here is the practical framework, with the trade-offs explained.
Key takeaways
- The optimal RFP shortlist size for most events sits in the single-digit range — typically 6-12 hotels.
- Below 6: competitive pressure is weak; hotels know there is little risk of losing the business.
- Above 15: response quality drops; hotels at the bottom of long lists give boilerplate quotes; your evaluation team burns out.
- Quality of hotel selection matters more than quantity. A focused shortlist with strong fit beats a wide shortlist with marginal candidates.
- Specific exceptions (small markets, urgent timeline, single-source justification) are real and should override the default.
Table of contents
The "more is better" instinct in RFPs comes from a defensible logic: more competition equals better pricing. The "fewer is faster" instinct comes from a different defensible logic: smaller shortlists are easier to evaluate and let you maintain stronger relationships with each candidate.
Both instincts are partly right. The reality is that there is an optimal range — narrow, defensible, and counterintuitive enough that most planners we see in our work land outside it on either side.
This guide walks through the framework. We do not have publicly verifiable third-party benchmarks for the optimal range, but we do have years of working alongside planners and seeing the patterns that produce strong outcomes versus weak ones. The framework here reflects those patterns. Apply it as a starting hypothesis and adjust based on your specific market, timing, and event.
Why 3 hotels is usually not enough
When you send an RFP to only three hotels, several dynamics work against you.
First, hotels infer the small count. Either you tell them, or they figure it out — sales teams ask "who else are you talking to?" and read the responses. With three hotels, they know the math: there is a ~33% chance any individual hotel wins, which is high enough that competitive pressure on rate is weak.
Second, you have selection bias. The three hotels you remember off the top of your head are likely hotels you have a relationship with or that have been recommended by your network. They know you are favorably disposed, which further weakens negotiation.
Third, you do not get the variance you need. Three hotels means three data points. You cannot tell whether the rates you are seeing reflect the actual market or just three hotels' specific positioning.
Three-hotel RFPs are appropriate when you have a strong external reason: a very small market with limited candidates, an urgent timeline that does not allow broader sourcing, or a single-source justification for procurement reasons.
Why 30+ hotels is also wrong
When you send an RFP to thirty or more hotels, different dynamics work against you.
First, response quality drops. Hotels at the bottom of long RFP lists know they are competing against many; they give boilerplate responses that take less effort, and many do not respond at all. The completion rate falls.
Second, your evaluation team burns out. Reading and scoring thirty quotes thoroughly takes serious time. The team rushes, defaults to "lowest price," and the quality of the decision suffers.
Third, you lose negotiation leverage. Hotels at the top of your list — the ones you actually want to win — see a wide field and assume the negotiation will be primarily about price. They give a competitive opening rate but are less inclined to flex on F&B concessions, AV scope, or attrition because they assume the deal is going to a price-leader.
Thirty-plus hotel RFPs are rarely appropriate. The exception is when your event has very specific requirements (e.g., capacity above 5,000) and you need to confirm capacity availability across a wide field before narrowing.
The 6-12 sweet spot (and why 8 often works)
For most mid-market B2B events, a shortlist of 6-12 hotels balances the competing pressures. Eight is a useful default because it lets you include 2-3 candidates from each tier band without redundancy, gives you enough variance to read the market, and creates real competitive pressure without overwhelming the evaluation team.
Within 6-12, the specific number should reflect:
- Event scope: larger events with more variables benefit from the upper end.
- Market depth: strong markets (Lisbon, Barcelona) support 10-12; thinner markets (smaller cities) max out at 6-8.
- Timeline: tighter timelines argue for 6-8; longer timelines support 10-12.
- Evaluation capacity: how much time can your team realistically spend?
How to pick which hotels
The framework for shortlist composition:
Diversity across tier bands. Mix premium and mid-tier candidates so you can read the actual price-quality trade-offs.
Fit-for-event-type filter. Verify capacity match, breakout count, and AV capability before adding a hotel to the list. Pity invitations to make up the count waste everyone's time.
Mix of known relationships and new candidates. Some hotels you have worked with before; some that you have not. The new candidates often surprise on responsiveness and pricing.
Location diversity within target city. If your city has multiple MICE districts, sample across them.
Genuine candidates only. Each hotel should be a hotel that would win the business if it scored highest on your framework. Make-up-the-count invitations dilute the signal.
When to deviate
Smaller markets (3-5 hotels meeting baseline criteria): use what is available; supplement with a couple of stretch options if appropriate.
Urgent timeline (< 6 weeks to event): 3-6 hotels with high-touch follow-up. Sourcing speed beats wider competition when timeline is binding.
Single-source justification (specific venue with strategic relationship): 1-2 hotels with documented procurement justification.
Repeat venue (event running annually at the same property): 1-2 hotels with strong prior fit; consider a stretch option to keep the incumbent honest.
Sustainability constraints requiring rare certifications: smaller candidate pool by definition; 4-6 if available, with reasoning documented.
Apply the framework to your next RFP
Send to a focused shortlist with one click — Easy RFP handles the structured workflow.
Try Easy RFP →Frequently asked questions
Should we always send to exactly 8?
No — 8 is a useful default for most mid-market B2B events. Adjust based on your specific situation. The framework is the principle; 8 is a starting point.
What if our preferred timeline is 4 weeks?
4 weeks is tight. Reduce shortlist to 4-6 and use high-touch follow-up. Confirm receipt of the brief, schedule site visits in the first 2 weeks, and run BAFO in the last week.
How does this differ for very large events (5,000+ attendees)?
Larger events have fewer candidate venues by definition (only some can host that scale). Your effective shortlist is constrained by capacity. Send to all qualifying candidates (might be 4-8) and supplement with capacity-sharing combinations if appropriate.
Should we include hotels we have never used?
Yes. New candidates often surprise. Include 2-3 in any shortlist of 8-12.
What about multi-property hotel chains — should we send to multiple properties of the same brand?
Sometimes. Same-brand properties often coordinate quotes, which reduces effective competition. If you do include multiple, treat them as one entry for negotiation purposes.
Should we send to international chain hotels' regional sales offices or to specific properties?
Specific properties get higher-quality responses. Regional sales offices can be useful for very large multi-city events.
How do we handle hotels that decline to quote?
Decline-to-quote is a signal — sometimes it means your event does not fit their priority mix; sometimes it means your terms are unattractive. Ask for feedback. The hotels that decline often have useful information about what your brief is asking for that the market resists.
What happens if our shortlist of 8 produces only 4 good responses?
Fewer responses than expected can mean: timing was tight, your terms were unattractive, or the market is constrained. If 4 good responses are genuinely competitive, proceed with them. If not, consider extending the shortlist or revisiting the brief.