Delinquent parking citation revenue is owed to your city. Whether it is recovered depends almost entirely on how your collections program is structured, managed, and held accountable.

On the surface, most collections bids look similar. They include recovery-rate projections, notice sequencing diagrams and references from other cities.

The real differences that matter are less obvious. Some bidders can either propose models that create competitive collections pressure and independent performance oversight, or they can quietly concentrate all leverage with a single vendor.

The former will ensure accountability and robust revenues, whereas the latter will mask performance.

This guide is designed to help at two stages of the procurement process. Use it before issuing an RFP to define the characteristics of a strong collections program. Then use it during proposal evaluation to assess how well each respondent meets those requirements.

How to Use This Guide:

When drafting an RFP: Use the green anchor descriptions as specification language. They define the characteristics of a responsive, accountable collections program.

When evaluating proposals: Ask vendors to address each criterion directly and score their responses using the 1–5 rating scale. If a proposal avoids a question, provides vague responses, or cannot clearly explain its approach to difficult debt, oversight, or multi-vendor accountability, that may indicate risks worth exploring before an award decision is made.

Final Thoughts for Cities

A collections proposal that promises strong recovery rates is not the same as one that creates accountability for achieving them. Vendors will naturally optimize within the structure a contract provides. If all accounts, performance reporting, and oversight sit with a single provider, the city has limited visibility into what is working, what is not, and whether results could be improved.

The questions in this guide are designed to reveal that distinction before a contract is awarded. Strong proposals address them clearly and directly. Weaker proposals tend to avoid difficult questions, rely on self-reported performance metrics, or describe oversight mechanisms controlled by the collection agency itself.

Cities that achieve the strongest long-term recovery outcomes are not necessarily those that select the highest projected recovery rate. They are the ones that build independent oversight, competitive pressure, and portfolio visibility into their collections program from the outset.

The vendor projecting the highest recovery rate is not necessarily the one most accountable for delivering it.

If you would like help drafting RFP requirements, structuring a bid evaluation panel, or reviewing proposals against this framework,contact our team here.