RFIs are market research tools used early in procurement to explore vendor capabilities across 10-20 potential suppliers, while RFPs are formal proposal requests sent to 3-5 shortlisted vendors with detailed requirements and pricing. Organizations that properly sequence RFI (exploration phase, 1-2 weeks response time) followed by RFP (evaluation phase, 4-6 weeks response time) make better purchasing decisions while reducing evaluation time by 30-40% compared to skipping the RFI stage.
If you've ever been confused about whether to send an RFI or RFP, you're not alone. Here's what you need to know about when each document actually works, with specific examples from enterprise procurement teams.
Both documents look similar, both go to vendors, and both aim to help you make better purchasing decisions. But using them interchangeably is like using a metal detector when you need a microscope—similar purpose, completely different level of detail.
An RFI is your reconnaissance mission. Use it when you're asking: "What's even possible here?"
What RFIs Actually Contain:
At their core, RFIs gather qualitative information about:
Real Example: A healthcare system issued an RFI to 12 vendors before standardizing their security questionnaire process. Their RFI asked: "How do you handle HIPAA-compliant document workflows?" and "What healthcare organizations have you worked with?" No pricing, no detailed specs—just discovery.
The RFI responses revealed that only 4 of the 12 vendors had actual healthcare experience. This saved them from evaluating 8 detailed proposals that would never work for their compliance requirements.
An RFP says: "Here's exactly what we need—show us how you'll deliver it."
What RFPs Demand:
RFPs require vendors to provide:
Real Example: After their RFI phase, that same healthcare system sent RFPs to their shortlisted 4 vendors. The RFP included a 40-page requirements document covering everything from API specifications to staff training protocols. Each vendor response ran 80-120 pages with detailed technical diagrams, implementation Gantt charts, and line-item pricing.
Use an RFI when you're exploring solutions in a space where your team lacks expertise.
Example: A financial services company needed AI-powered RFP automation (eventually becoming an Arphie client) but had never evaluated AI tools before. Their RFI to 15 vendors asked: "What AI models do you use, and how do you prevent hallucinations in generated content?" The responses educated their procurement team on terms like "retrieval-augmented generation" and "confidence scoring"—knowledge they needed before writing a proper RFP.
If you're establishing a new vendor category in your procurement system, RFIs help you vet potential suppliers before they can bid on projects.
Sometimes you know you have a problem but not what the solution looks like. RFIs help define the art of the possible.
Example: A retail chain knew their RFP response process was slow but didn't know if they needed training, new software, or process consulting. Their RFI asked vendors: "What are the most common causes of slow RFP response times?" The answers (content disorganization, lack of collaboration tools, outdated response libraries) helped them write an RFP focused on AI-native RFP automation platforms.
Before committing to a major initiative, use RFIs to assess whether the market can actually deliver what you need.
Organizations issue RFIs for emerging capabilities like "AI-powered DDQ automation" to determine if viable solutions exist. If RFI responses show immature offerings, you might delay the project rather than waste time on premature RFPs.
Issue an RFP only after internal stakeholders agree on detailed requirements.
Red flag: If your team is still debating core features, you're not ready for an RFP.
RFPs request detailed pricing, so you need an approved budget range.
Best practice: Include a budget range in your RFP. This helps vendors tailor their approach to your constraints.
RFPs should include your decision timeline and desired implementation dates. This helps vendors determine if they can meet your schedule.
Only issue an RFP if you're prepared to evaluate responses thoroughly and make a selection. RFPs signal serious buying intent—sending one without follow-through damages your reputation with vendors.
Here's how to transition effectively between documents:
Time-saving tip: Use standardized RFI templates for your industry.
Here's what separates good RFIs from time-wasting ones:
Bad RFI opening: "We're exploring options for RFP software."
Good RFI opening: "We're conducting market research to identify 3-4 qualified vendors who will receive a formal RFP in Q2. This RFI is non-binding and will not result in a purchase decision. We expect to notify shortlisted vendors by [date]."
Bad question: "Tell us about your company." (Too vague)
Good question: "Describe your experience with financial services clients processing 10,000+ security questionnaires annually. Include specific client examples and outcomes achieved."
The good version gives vendors a clear frame of reference while still allowing flexibility in their response.
RFIs with fewer, focused questions receive better response rates than those with 30+ questions. Quality over quantity—you're doing discovery, not due diligence.
Instead of asking "Can you handle our workflow?" ask "Please provide a sample workflow diagram showing how your system handles multi-stakeholder approvals." Concrete deliverables reveal capability better than written claims.
Here are patterns in what makes RFPs clear versus confusing:
Vendors respond more effectively when they understand your business context. Include:
Example: Instead of "We need an RFP tool," try "We're a 500-person B2B SaaS company responding to 200 RFPs/year. Our sales team currently uses SharePoint and Word docs, resulting in 15-day average response time. We need to reduce this to 5 days while improving response quality. Our tech stack includes Salesforce, Slack, and Google Workspace, and we require SSO via Okta."
Tell vendors exactly how you'll score their proposals. Standard weightings:
When vendors know you're weighting functionality at 40%, they'll prioritize detailed feature explanations over marketing fluff.
Organize your RFP into logical sections:
This structure helps vendors (especially those using tools like AI-powered RFP response automation) locate and address all your requirements.
RFPs under 50 pages: 3-4 weeks minimum
RFPs 50-100 pages: 4-6 weeks
RFPs over 100 pages: 6-8 weeks
Organizations sometimes send an RFI and RFP to the same vendors at the same time. This defeats the entire purpose—you're asking vendors to do discovery and detailed proposals simultaneously. Pick one or sequence them properly.
Some organizations issue "RFIs" that actually contain detailed requirements and pricing requests. This confuses vendors and produces inconsistent responses. If you want detailed proposals, call it an RFP.
Some RFPs require vendors to support highly specific custom formats or legacy system requirements. This can limit your vendor pool unnecessarily.
Better approach: Distinguish must-haves from nice-to-haves. Use a MOSCOW framework (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have).
RFPs without a formal Q&A period receive more clarification emails during evaluation, slowing your process. Include:
Manual RFI/RFP processes don't scale. Here's what modern automation offers:
Modern procurement teams use specialized software to:
Sales teams responding to RFIs and RFPs face different challenges—primarily, answering the same questions repeatedly across multiple opportunities.
This is where AI-native platforms like Arphie fundamentally change the game. Unlike legacy systems built before modern AI, Arphie was designed specifically to use large language models for:
Real impact: Teams using Arphie report 60% or more time savings when switching from legacy RFP software, and customers with no prior RFP software typically see improvements of 80% or more. For organizations responding to RFIs, DDQs, security questionnaires, and RFPs regularly, automation isn't just about speed—it's about consistency and quality at scale.
The most sophisticated procurement teams use RFIs and RFPs as a choreographed process, not isolated events:
Stage 1 (RFI): Cast a wide net—10-20 vendors—to understand the full market landscape. Investment: 20-30 hours of internal time.
Stage 2 (RFP): Focus deeply on 3-5 qualified vendors. Investment: 60-80 hours of internal time plus vendor demos.
Total time: 80-110 hours
You can bypass the RFI stage if:
Some organizations add a middle step: After RFI responses, conduct vendor demos or presentations before issuing the RFP. This three-stage approach works well for complex enterprise software purchases where seeing the product significantly impacts requirement definition.
Example: A company evaluating AI-powered RFP automation might: (1) Issue RFI asking about AI capabilities, (2) Watch demos from 5 shortlisted vendors to see actual AI in action, (3) Issue detailed RFP to top 3 vendors with refined requirements based on demo learnings.
Different industries have evolved specific RFI/RFP practices:
Government procurement is heavily regulated, often requiring:
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) governs U.S. federal procurement with specific RFI/RFP rules that differ significantly from private sector practices.
Healthcare RFIs and RFPs must address HIPAA compliance, patient data security, and often require:
Banks and financial institutions typically require:
Many financial services RFPs include 100+ page security questionnaires that vendors must complete separately from the main proposal.
Tech companies often use abbreviated processes:
How do you know if your RFI/RFP process is working? Track these metrics:
Procurement is evolving rapidly. Here's where RFIs and RFPs are headed:
Emerging platforms use AI to automatically match buyer requirements with vendor capabilities, potentially reducing or eliminating the RFI stage. Instead of vendors completing RFI questionnaires, AI analyzes vendor websites, case studies, and previous proposals to determine fit.
Rather than static documents, some organizations are experimenting with "living RFPs" that evolve based on vendor questions and feedback.
Instead of one comprehensive RFP, some teams issue a series of smaller RFPs for project phases. This aligns with agile development methodologies and reduces vendor risk.
Industry groups are creating standardized RFI/RFP templates and question libraries to reduce document creation time.
If you're preparing to issue an RFI or RFP, here's your immediate action plan:
If you're starting vendor research:
If you have defined requirements:
If you're unsure which to use:
If you're responding to RFIs and RFPs regularly:
Consider whether your current tools scale with your opportunity volume. Teams responding to 50+ RFPs annually often benefit from automation. Explore AI-native solutions that were built specifically for this use case rather than adapted from other purposes.
Understanding when to use an RFI versus an RFP isn't just procurement pedantry—it's the difference between efficient vendor selection and wasted weeks evaluating the wrong solutions.
Use RFIs early to explore, educate, and eliminate. Use RFPs later to evaluate, compare, and select. When you sequence them strategically, you make better decisions faster while building stronger vendor relationships.
Whether you're buying software, services, or solutions, starting with the right question format sets the trajectory for everything that follows.
An RFI (Request for Information) is a market research tool used early in procurement to gather qualitative information about vendor capabilities, typically sent to 10-20 vendors with 1-2 week response times. An RFP (Request for Proposal) is a formal solicitation document sent to 3-5 shortlisted vendors requesting detailed proposals with specific pricing, implementation plans, and technical specifications, requiring 4-6 weeks for responses.
Use an RFI when entering unfamiliar technology markets, building approved vendor lists, clarifying undefined requirements, or gauging market maturity. Skip the RFI if you've worked extensively with the vendor category before, the market has only 3 or fewer viable vendors, you're re-competing an existing contract, or internal urgency demands faster cycle time.
RFIs typically run 5-15 pages with broad, exploratory questions and allow 1-2 weeks for vendor responses. RFPs are much more detailed at 30-100+ pages, include comprehensive requirements documentation, and require 3-6 weeks for vendors to prepare proposals with detailed technical diagrams, implementation plans, and itemized pricing.
Include clear expectations about next steps and timeline, ask 15-20 open-ended but focused questions about vendor capabilities and experience, request specific artifacts like workflow diagrams rather than general descriptions, and provide context about your industry and requirements. High-quality RFIs specify whether shortlisted vendors will receive an RFP and when, helping vendors provide appropriately detailed responses.
Send RFIs to a broad pool of 10-20 vendors to understand the full market landscape, then shortlist 3-5 qualified vendors based on RFI responses to receive the detailed RFP. This two-stage approach saves 30-40% evaluation time compared to sending detailed RFPs to all vendors, while ensuring you don't miss qualified suppliers.
Yes, AI-native platforms like Arphie can reduce RFP response time by 60-80% through intelligent response generation, automated content management, and quality assurance features. These tools are particularly valuable for organizations responding to 50+ RFPs annually, helping maintain consistency and quality at scale while dramatically reducing manual effort.
Dean Shu is the co-founder and CEO of Arphie, where he's building AI agents that automate enterprise workflows like RFP responses and security questionnaires. A Harvard graduate with experience at Scale AI, McKinsey, and Insight Partners, Dean writes about AI's practical applications in business, the challenges of scaling startups, and the future of enterprise automation.
.png)
