After processing over 40,000 RFIs through our platform at Arphie, we've identified specific patterns that separate effective information gathering from wasted vendor time. 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?"
In our analysis of enterprise procurement workflows, organizations that use RFIs strategically reduce their RFP cycle time by an average of 23% by filtering out mismatched vendors early. Here's why: RFIs let you validate assumptions about the market before you've invested 40+ hours drafting a formal RFP.
The distinction matters more than most procurement guides suggest:
We've tracked response rates across thousands of RFIs. Documents with these specific elements get 34% higher response rates and 2.1x more detailed answers:
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 200+ security questionnaires annually, spending roughly 15 hours per response. We need to understand if your platform can auto-populate answers from our existing security documentation while maintaining SOC 2 compliance for answer sourcing."
This specificity helps vendors self-select out if they're not a fit, saving everyone time.
The most effective RFIs we've seen 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 the format we recommend based on vendor feedback:
Company Overview (200 words max)
Capability-Specific Responses (300 words per capability)
Technical Requirements (Yes/No with brief explanation)
This structure makes vendor comparison straightforward and prevents the 40-page response documents that no one reads.
After analyzing patterns in low-quality RFI responses, we've identified three structural issues that consistently generate unusable vendor information:
RFIs that try to answer too many questions at once get shallow responses across the board. We tracked one enterprise that asked 47 questions in a single RFI—average response quality scored 3.2/10 by their evaluation team.
When they split the same questions into two focused RFIs (technical capabilities vs. implementation methodology), response quality jumped to 7.8/10.
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.
One purchasing team we worked with added this single line to their RFI template: "We will evaluate responses primarily on [X], secondarily on [Y], and [Z] is nice-to-have."
Their rate of "clearly meets needs" responses improved from 41% to 73%.
RFIs with 3-5 business day response windows get either rushed answers or no response at all from top-tier vendors. Our data shows that 10 business days is the sweet spot—long enough for thoughtful responses, short enough to maintain momentum.
For complex technical RFIs (integration requirements, security architecture, etc.), extend to 15 business days.
We've seen procurement teams waste weeks on RFI rounds that didn't need to happen. Run through this checklist first:
Can you answer this with public information?
Before issuing an RFI, spend 2 hours reviewing vendor websites, case studies, and documentation. Tools like AI-powered response platforms often publish detailed capability matrices that answer 60-70% of typical RFI questions.
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 8+ potential vendors.
Do you have evaluation capacity?
Each RFI response requires 30-90 minutes of evaluation time. If you're sending to 12 vendors, that's 6-18 hours of work. 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 how we structure questions for our own vendor evaluations:
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 3-4 different 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 the evaluation framework we use internally at Arphie:
Responsiveness: Did they answer what you actually asked?
Evidence Quality: Did they back up claims?
Fit Indicators: Does their response suggest they understand your use case?
Disqualifying Factors: Look for immediate red flags
This matrix typically surfaces 2-4 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: At least 3 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.
After building AI-native RFI automation specifically for this workflow, here's what we've learned makes a practical difference:
When you're comparing responses from 8 vendors across 15 questions, that's 120 data points to track. Modern platforms can automatically extract and categorize answers, creating side-by-side comparison views.
This cuts evaluation time from 8 hours to roughly 2 hours 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: 15-page 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 (email is fine), 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 2-year-old 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 our analysis of 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 80% of 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.
The most effective RFI we've seen in the past year came from a financial services company evaluating proposal automation platforms. Their approach:
Week 1: Internal alignment meeting to define 5 core questions and 3 nice-to-have questions
Week 2: Sent focused 2-page RFI to 8 vendors with 10-day response window
Week 3: Responses came in, team used evaluation matrix to score (took 3 hours total)
Week 4: Narrowed to 4 vendors for RFP stage, incorporating RFI insights into weighted criteria
Result: They issued a much more focused RFP to fewer vendors, reduced total procurement cycle by 6 weeks, and reported higher satisfaction with final vendor selection.
The RFI didn't just filter vendors—it clarified their own requirements and built internal consensus before significant resources went 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 typically pays for itself within 2-3 procurement cycles through time savings and improved vendor matching.
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.
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)
