After processing 400,000+ procurement requests across enterprise teams, we've seen a clear pattern: choosing the wrong document type costs organizations an average of 3-4 weeks in procurement delays. The difference between an RFP (Request for Proposal) and an RFQ (Request for Quote) isn't just semantics—it fundamentally changes how vendors respond, what information you receive, and whether you'll get the solution you actually need.
Here's what we've learned from helping teams automate both types of documents.
RFQs focus exclusively on price comparison for defined requirements. When you issue an RFQ, you're telling vendors: "Here's exactly what we need. Tell us your price and delivery terms." This works when you're buying 500 units of a specific laptop model or renewing a software license with known specifications.
RFPs evaluate solutions, not just prices. An RFP signals: "Here's our business challenge. Propose how you'd solve it, why your approach works, and what it costs." According to Gartner's procurement research, RFPs typically evaluate vendors on 6-12 weighted criteria, with price representing only 20-35% of the final score.
In our experience processing enterprise RFPs at Arphie, buyers who use RFQs for complex projects end up with 3x more vendor clarification questions and miss critical solution components that would have surfaced in a proper RFP process.
RFQ structure (typically 3-8 pages):
RFP structure (typically 15-50 pages):
The structural difference matters for AI processing. We've found that well-structured RFPs with clear section headers and evaluation criteria get 40% more relevant vendor responses than loosely formatted documents.
RFQ responses are straightforward:
RFP responses require substantial effort:
From our data, the average RFQ takes vendors 2-4 hours to complete. The average enterprise RFP takes 40-80 hours across multiple team members. This explains why vendors are selective about which RFPs they respond to—and why your RFP quality directly impacts response rates.
1. Requirements are 100% defined and standardized
You're buying 200 identical standing desks with specific dimensions, weight capacity, and finish. The product specifications won't change based on vendor input.
2. You're comparing commodity pricing
Office supplies, bulk materials, standard software licenses, or recurring services where differentiation is minimal. Institute for Supply Management research shows RFQs work best when comparing 3-8 vendors on standardized products.
3. Price is the primary selection criteria
When you've already validated quality and compliance, and you're optimizing for cost. We've seen procurement teams use RFQs effectively for renewal scenarios where the incumbent vendor has a known baseline price.
4. Timeline is tight
RFQs can be issued and evaluated within 1-2 weeks. For urgent procurements, an RFQ gets you pricing fast.
Real example: A financial services company needed to purchase 500 laptops matching their existing fleet specs. They issued an RFQ to 5 vendors, received quotes within 3 days, and completed procurement in 9 days total.
1. The solution approach matters as much as the price
You need a new customer data platform, but you're open to different technical architectures (cloud-native, hybrid, API-first, etc.). The vendor's proposed approach will influence your decision.
2. You're solving a complex business problem
Implementing a new procurement system, redesigning your website, or launching a change management program. According to McKinsey's procurement insights, complex projects benefit from evaluating vendor methodology, not just deliverables.
3. You need to assess vendor capabilities and experience
For projects with significant risk or strategic importance, you want to evaluate team qualifications, relevant case studies, and the vendor's understanding of your industry.
4. Requirements will evolve through vendor input
You have a business objective but aren't prescriptive about the solution. Vendor proposals might reveal approaches you hadn't considered.
Real example: A healthcare organization needed to improve patient intake workflows. They issued an RFP because they wanted vendors to propose different solutions—some suggested mobile apps, others recommended kiosk systems, and one proposed an SMS-based approach. The winning solution came from vendor innovation, not from the buyer's original specification.
Here's a procurement strategy we've seen work exceptionally well for mid-complexity projects:
Issue a lightweight RFQ to 8-12 vendors asking for:
This takes vendors 1-2 hours to complete and helps you identify 3-4 qualified vendors within your budget range.
Send a comprehensive RFP to your shortlisted vendors requesting detailed proposals. This reduces vendor effort waste (they know they're in a smaller competition) and focuses your evaluation time on viable candidates.
Data point: When we analyzed 1,200 procurement cycles at enterprise companies, those using a two-stage approach reduced total procurement time by 28% compared to starting with a full RFP sent to 10+ vendors.
Vague specifications: "High-quality office chairs" doesn't give vendors enough detail. Specify weight capacity, adjustability requirements, material standards, and warranty expectations.
Ignoring total cost of ownership: Choosing the lowest-priced vendor without considering shipping, installation, training, or maintenance costs. We've seen "cheap" RFQ selections cost 35% more over 3 years.
Requesting customization in an RFQ: If you're asking for custom features or modifications, you need an RFP. RFQs assume standard offerings.
Unclear evaluation criteria: When vendors don't know how you'll score proposals, they guess at what matters. In our RFP automation work, we've found that explicitly weighted criteria improve response relevance by 60%.
Unrealistic timelines: Giving vendors 5 days to complete a 40-hour RFP guarantees poor responses or fewer submissions. Industry standard is 3-4 weeks for complex RFPs.
One-size-fits-all RFPs: Sending identical RFPs to vastly different vendor types (boutique agencies vs. enterprise consultancies) results in misaligned responses. Tailor your RFP to your target vendor profile.
Overly prescriptive requirements: If you specify exactly how vendors must deliver the solution, you're eliminating their ability to propose innovative approaches—which defeats the purpose of an RFP.
Traditional RFP response is manual and time-intensive—explaining why vendor response rates hover around 30-40% for cold RFPs. AI-native RFP automation changes this equation by:
For vendors responding to RFPs:
For buyers managing RFPs:
In our experience, AI automation is more impactful for RFPs than RFQs because RFPs involve more unstructured content, subjective evaluation, and complex coordination.
Ask yourself three questions:
Can I specify exactly what I need without vendor input? If yes → RFQ. If no → RFP.
Is price my primary decision factor? If yes → RFQ. If no → RFP.
Do I need to evaluate how vendors would approach the work? If yes → RFP. If no → RFQ.
For mid-complexity projects where you're uncertain, start with an RFI (Request for Information) to gather market intelligence, then decide whether to proceed with an RFQ or RFP based on what you learn.
The procurement document you choose sends a signal to vendors about what you value and how you'll make decisions. Choose intentionally, structure clearly, and you'll get better responses—whether you're optimizing for price or seeking the best strategic solution.
Want to streamline your RFP process? Learn how Arphie's AI-native platform helps enterprise teams automate RFPs, security questionnaires, and DDQs with intelligent response generation.
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)
