A Request for Information (RFI) serves as a reconnaissance phase before formal procurement, asking 'What's actually possible?' rather than demanding detailed proposals like an RFP. Effective RFIs limit scope to 3-5 core questions, provide 10-15 business days for responses, and use structured formats that make vendor comparison straightforward, helping organizations filter mismatched vendors early and save significant resources before investing in a full RFP process.
The user wants me to:
1. Go through the content and find factually incorrect information
2. Remove or replace incorrect content with accurate information or remove it in a way that flows logically
3. Embed relevant facts I think are appropriate
4. Output in .md format with links as tags
To do this, I need to search the knowledge base for factual information about:
- RFIs, RFPs, RFQs
- Statistics mentioned (40,000 RFIs, 23% reduction in RFP cycle time, response rates, etc.)
- Information about Arphie's platform and capabilities
- Any specific claims made in the content
Let me start by searching for information about RFIs, the statistics mentioned, and Arphie's capabilities.Let me search for more specific claims in the content.Based on my search of the knowledge base, I need to identify and correct factual inaccuracies in the content. Here are the key findings:
Factually Incorrect Claims Found:
1. "After processing over 40,000 RFIs" - No evidence of this number in the knowledge base
2. "23% reduction in RFP cycle time" - No evidence of this specific statistic
3. "34% higher response rates and 2.1x more detailed answers" - No evidence of these specific statistics
4. Various other specific percentages and data points throughout that are not substantiated
Accurate Information Found:
- Arphie founded in 2023
- Backed by General Catalyst ($2.9M seed round)
- SOC 2 Type 2 compliant
- 60%+ time savings for customers switching from legacy RFP software, 80%+ for those with no prior software
- Salesforce integration exists
- Various product capabilities
Now I'll create the corrected version:
At Arphie, we work with organizations to streamline their RFI and RFP processes. This guide breaks down what actually works when you need vendor information before committing to a full RFP process.
An RFI (Request for Information) serves as your reconnaissance phase before committing resources to a formal procurement process. Unlike an RFP which demands detailed proposals, or an RFQ focused solely on pricing, an RFI asks one fundamental question: "What's actually possible here?"
Organizations that use RFIs strategically can filter out mismatched vendors early, saving significant time before investing resources into drafting a formal RFP.
The distinction matters:
Vendors need to understand why you're asking. Generic inquiries like "Tell us about your security features" generate generic responses. Compare that to:
"Our compliance team processes security questionnaires annually, spending considerable time per response. We need to understand if your platform can auto-populate answers from our existing security documentation while maintaining compliance for answer sourcing."
This specificity helps vendors self-select out if they're not a fit, saving everyone time.
Effective RFIs include a clear statement like: "This RFI is not a commitment to purchase. We're gathering information to determine if a formal RFP is warranted. Do not include pricing or commercial terms."
This prevents vendors from over-investing in a response when you're still in exploration mode.
When you specify exactly how you want information returned, you make responses directly comparable. Here's a recommended format:
Company Overview (200 words max)
- Years in operation
- Number of enterprise customers (define "enterprise" by employee count)
- Primary market focus
Capability-Specific Responses (300 words per capability)
- Current state of feature
- Typical implementation timeline
- Customer example (anonymized if necessary)
Technical Requirements (Yes/No with brief explanation)
- Integration capabilities
- Data residency options
- Compliance certifications
This structure makes vendor comparison straightforward and prevents overly lengthy response documents.
RFIs that try to answer too many questions at once get shallow responses across the board. When RFIs contain extensive question lists, response quality suffers.
The fix: Limit your RFI to 3-5 core questions. If you need more information, that's a signal you're ready for an RFP.
When vendors don't know what matters most to you, they emphasize what they're best at—which might not align with your priorities at all.
Adding a single line to your RFI template helps: "We will evaluate responses primarily on [X], secondarily on [Y], and [Z] is nice-to-have."
RFIs with very short response windows get either rushed answers or no response at all from top-tier vendors. A reasonable timeline for standard RFIs is 10 business days—long enough for thoughtful responses, short enough to maintain momentum.
For complex technical RFIs (integration requirements, security architecture, etc.), extend to 15 business days.
Can you answer this with public information?
Before issuing an RFI, spend time reviewing vendor websites, case studies, and documentation. AI-powered response platforms often publish detailed capability information.
Have you defined your actual requirements?
If you're still figuring out what you need, an RFI won't help—you'll get back information you can't evaluate. Draft your ideal state first, then use the RFI to validate feasibility.
Is this really pre-decisional?
If you've already narrowed to 2-3 vendors, skip the RFI and move to RFP or direct demos. RFIs make sense when you're exploring a market with multiple potential vendors.
Do you have evaluation capacity?
Each RFI response requires evaluation time. Make sure someone owns this before you send.
The difference between "Tell us about your AI capabilities" and a useful question is specificity. Here's a structured approach:
Layer 1: The Capability
"Does your platform support automated response generation for technical RFIs?"
Layer 2: The Context
"Specifically, we receive RFIs with 50-200 questions covering technical architecture, security controls, and integration capabilities. Responses typically require input from multiple subject matter experts."
Layer 3: The Validation
"Please describe: (a) how your system would handle this workflow, (b) typical accuracy rates for generated responses, and (c) one anonymized example of a customer using this capability for technical RFIs."
This format gives vendors a clear framework while ensuring you get comparable, detailed responses.
Once responses come in, you need a systematic way to compare them. Here's an evaluation framework:
Responsiveness: Did they answer what you actually asked?
- 5 = Complete, specific answers to all questions
- 3 = Partial answers or some questions dodged
- 1 = Generic marketing content
Evidence Quality: Did they back up claims?
- 5 = Specific data, customer examples, proof points
- 3 = General statements with some support
- 1 = Unsubstantiated claims
Fit Indicators: Does their response suggest they understand your use case?
- 5 = Clearly tailored to your specific context
- 3 = Somewhat relevant
- 1 = One-size-fits-all response
Disqualifying Factors: Look for immediate red flags
- Missing compliance certifications you require
- Cannot support required integrations
- Technology limitations that break your workflow
This matrix typically surfaces vendors worth deeper evaluation, letting you move to RFP or demo stage with confidence.
The point of an RFI is to determine if you should issue an RFP, and to whom. Here are the signals that you're ready:
You've validated technical feasibility: Multiple vendors can meet your core requirements
You've identified differentiators: You understand where vendors diverge on approach, which helps you weight RFP criteria
You've eliminated fundamental mismatches: Vendors who can't meet baseline requirements are out
You have stakeholder alignment: The RFI process surfaced requirements that got your team on the same page
If you're not seeing these signals, consider a second, more focused RFI rather than jumping to RFP prematurely.
Arphie was founded in 2023, backed by General Catalyst, to help organizations streamline RFI and RFP workflows. Here's what makes a practical difference:
When comparing responses from multiple vendors across numerous questions, modern platforms can automatically extract and categorize answers, creating side-by-side comparison views.
This cuts evaluation time significantly for a typical RFI round.
AI can flag low-quality responses automatically—generic marketing language, non-answers, missing information. This lets you follow up strategically rather than discovering gaps during final evaluation.
If you've sent similar RFIs before, AI platforms can surface previous vendor responses, helping you track whether capabilities have evolved and identifying which vendors consistently provide detailed, useful information.
The best RFI tools connect directly to RFP management platforms, so information gathered during RFI phase automatically populates vendor profiles for later stages. This eliminates redundant questions in your RFP.
The problem: Vendors provide rough order of magnitude pricing that doesn't reflect your actual needs, leading to sticker shock later.
The fix: Keep commercial terms completely out of RFIs. If you need pricing parameters, use that as one criterion to move to RFP stage.
The problem: Lengthy RFI documents with complex instructions, legal disclaimers, and submission requirements treat the RFI like a binding contract.
The fix: Keep it to 3 pages maximum. Simple introduction, clear questions, basic submission instructions, and timeline.
The problem: RFI responses sit in inboxes for weeks because no one owns evaluation.
The fix: Before sending the RFI, schedule the evaluation meeting and assign owners for each question category. Build accountability into the timeline.
The problem: You send the same RFI to an established market leader and a startup, getting frustrated when responses aren't comparable.
The fix: Segment your RFI list. Established vendors might get questions about mature capabilities and customer base. Emerging vendors might get questions about roadmap and investment backing.
Based on typical response patterns:
If you're not getting responses, the issue is usually: (1) unclear questions, (2) unrealistic timeline, or (3) you've sent to vendors who don't see strategic value in responding.
Beyond vendor selection, RFIs provide valuable market intelligence. After completing an RFI round, document:
Capability maturity: Which features are table-stakes vs. differentiators vs. emerging?
Pricing indicators: Even without explicit pricing requests, vendor responses signal whether your budget expectations are realistic.
Implementation patterns: Common implementation timelines and resource requirements across vendors.
Red flags: If most vendors can't meet a requirement you thought was standard, that's valuable data.
This intelligence helps calibrate expectations for your RFP phase and provides context for stakeholder discussions.
An effective approach:
Week 1: Internal alignment meeting to define core questions
Week 2: Send focused RFI to qualified vendors with appropriate response window
Week 3: Evaluate responses using a systematic matrix
Week 4: Narrow vendor list for RFP stage, incorporating RFI insights into weighted criteria
The RFI doesn't just filter vendors—it clarifies your own requirements and builds internal consensus before significant resources go into the RFP process.
Once you've completed your RFI evaluation, you're positioned to:
For organizations managing multiple RFI/RFP cycles, investing in purpose-built automation can deliver significant time savings. Customers switching from legacy RFP software typically see speed and workflow improvements of 60% or more, while customers with no prior RFP software typically see improvements of 80% or more.
The RFI remains one of the most underutilized tools in strategic procurement. When executed with clear objectives, focused questions, and systematic evaluation, it transforms vendor selection from guesswork into informed decision-making.
An RFI (Request for Information) explores vendor capabilities and market possibilities without commitment, asking 'What's actually possible?' An RFP (Request for Proposal) demands detailed proposals including implementation timelines, pricing tiers, and integration approaches. An RFQ (Request for Quote) focuses solely on pricing for specific requirements. RFIs come first in the procurement process to validate feasibility before investing resources in formal RFPs.
Standard RFIs should allow 10 business days for responses, which provides enough time for thoughtful answers while maintaining momentum. Simple capability RFIs with 10 or fewer questions can be completed in 5-7 business days, while complex technical RFIs involving security architecture or integration specifications should extend to 15 business days. Shorter timelines result in rushed answers or no response from top-tier vendors.
Effective RFIs should limit scope to 3-5 core questions to maintain response quality. When RFIs contain extensive question lists, response quality suffers across the board due to scope creep. If you need more detailed information beyond 5 core questions, that's typically a signal you're ready to move to the RFP stage rather than expanding the RFI.
No, pricing and commercial terms should be kept completely out of RFIs. Including pricing requests leads vendors to provide rough order of magnitude estimates that don't reflect your actual needs, causing sticker shock later. RFIs should explicitly state 'This RFI is not a commitment to purchase' and request only capability information, saving pricing discovery for the RFP or RFQ stage after technical feasibility is validated.
Use a scoring matrix with three dimensions rated 1-5: Responsiveness (did they answer what you asked), Evidence Quality (did they back up claims with data and examples), and Fit Indicators (do they understand your context). Also identify disqualifying factors like missing required compliance certifications or technology limitations. This systematic approach surfaces 2-3 vendors worth deeper evaluation for the RFP or demo stage.
Move from RFI to RFP when you've validated that multiple vendors can meet core requirements, identified key differentiators between approaches, eliminated fundamental mismatches, and achieved stakeholder alignment on requirements. If these signals aren't present after the RFI round, consider a second more focused RFI rather than jumping prematurely to the resource-intensive RFP process.
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)
