As a consultant trying to win university campus planning projects, the process can be frustrating and costly. Without hours of due diligence, opposition research, attending conferences, and other meet-and-greets, the chances of winning a project on a whim are very low. On the other side of the table, a short-staffed university planner wears many hats and has little time to entertain consultants' seemingly constant need for attention.

The Disconnect: Campus View Versus Consultant Tactics

The University Planner Perspective
Overwhelmed by noise, the typical university planner is inundated with slick marketing, emails, cold calls, and portfolios, many of which feel impersonal or misaligned with institutional needs. Who are these people? What do they offer? When will I find time to follow up? The suspicion of salespeople with flashy materials often raises concerns about style over substance, or whether consultants truly understand campus context and culture.

And then, there are the institutional procurement rules that often limit informal engagement once a request for professional services is issued. Unfortunately, these rules, while designed to ensure fairness, can inadvertently reinforce transactional behavior and prevent the kind of authentic, early conversations that would lead to better outcomes. This forces reliance on time-consuming Request for Quotations (RFQ) / Requests for Proposals (RFP) and all the associated follow-up activities, leaving little room for proactive collaboration.

The Consultant Perspective
Now that I am once again a consultant, my colleagues and I face a seemingly endless stream of firms competing for attention. The need to stand out in the crowd is paramount. To be successful, firms must deploy a range of tactics, branding campaigns, client dinners, presentations at conferences, and cold outreach - all before the opportunity even hits the street. Yet, consultants often don't know what campus leaders are really looking for or why they aren't selected. This makes it difficult to tailor future efforts and improve their strategy. Winning a project can take months, or even years, requiring ongoing investment and relationship cultivation with no guarantee of return. It can be a grueling cycle of wins and losses, characterized by unpredictability and considerable resource allocation.

 

Common Consultant Techniques and Campus Reactions

Winning with Integrity
What my experience continues to teach me is: do your homework. Strive to understand a targeted institution's mission, recent plans, and leadership priorities before reaching out. Be relationship-oriented rather than transactional. Focus efforts on building trust over time - this includes engaging at conferences, asking good questions, and offering thought leadership without strings attached.

When making your pitch to a prospective client, avoid the boilerplate approach. Instead, speak directly to the campus's unique qualities, leadership strategies, or pain points. Bring more than a resume: bring insights about trends, technologies, or methods relevant to that institution. And, as challenging as it is to wait for opportunities, patience pays off. Being "top of mind" when a project arises is more powerful than the hard sell.

Smarter Consultant Engagement
As a former university planner, I also learned the hard way that clarifying goals and priorities in RFQs can improve the overall procurement of professional services. Go beyond the technical scope, share institutional values, current pain points, and decision criteria.

To reduce confusion and build understanding, offer informal info sessions before RFPs drop. These early conversations can help level the playing field, invite better questions, and sharpen the scope. Even when no project is active, occasional dialogue keeps the bench strong and fosters relationships with diverse and emerging firms.

One example from my time at the University of Michigan stands out: by offering pre-RFP workshops and clearly articulating institutional goals, we saw a significant improvement in the quality and fit of proposals received. That experience affirmed for me how much good communication - before the process becomes formal - can shape better outcomes.

Finally, offer clear feedback to both successful and unsuccessful firms. It builds goodwill, encourages future participation, and ultimately improves the pool of proposals. A simple explanation can go a long way in turning a lost opportunity into a future win.

Creating a Culture of Partnership
Ultimately, the most successful engagements happen when both parties act not just as buyers and sellers, but as long-term partners working toward a shared vision for the campus. Consultants need to respect the institutional context and be ready to listen. University campus planners need to be open about needs and challenges and create clear, fair paths to engagement.

A Key Takeaway
My experience as both a university planner and private consultant taught me that bridging the gap starts with empathy, transparency, and a shared commitment. Better communication and aligned expectations mean both sides can contribute more effectively to thoughtful, strategic, and inclusive campus development.

What has your experience been?
Feel free to email editorial@landscapearchitect.com with your thoughts!

About the author....
Tony Catchot is a seasoned Landscape Architect and planner with over 40 years of experience in higher education, mixed-use, innovation, healthcare, and corporate environments across the U.S. and internationally. His expertise lies in leading interdisciplinary teams and building consensus among stakeholders to deliver visionary yet practical results.

His public-sector experience includes a decade at the University of Michigan, where he oversaw planning, design review, and construction coordination. Currently, as Principal at RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture, Tony continues to craft forward-thinking, context-sensitive environments that reflect institutional missions and community needs.