---
title: "Example of an RFI: Template, Questions, and Scoring"
url: "https://www.arphie.ai/blog/understanding-the-example-rfi-a-comprehensive-guide-to-crafting-effective-requests-for-information"
collection: blog
lastUpdated: 2026-08-18T17:18:57.016Z
---

# Example of an RFI: Template, Questions, and Scoring

## What Is an RFI?



An RFI is an early-stage document that a buyer uses to learn about available suppliers, solution approaches, capabilities, constraints, and sometimes indicative costs. It helps the buyer refine requirements and decide whether to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP), a Request for Quotation (RFQ), demonstrations, or no procurement at all.



An RFI does not create a purchase commitment. In US federal procurement, the standard [RFI provision](https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.215-3) states that the government does not intend to award a contract from the request and will treat responses as information rather than proposals. Private-sector issuers should use language approved for their own legal and procurement requirements.



For vendors, the RFI is often the first structured opportunity to establish technical fit and shape the buyer's eventual requirements. Our AI agents help response teams create [source-backed first drafts](https://www.arphie.ai/features) from current company knowledge, surface supporting evidence and confidence signals, and coordinate review. Solutions engineering, security, legal, services, and commercial owners still approve the claims within their areas.



| Document | Main purpose | Typical stage | What the respondent provides |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| RFI | Explore the market and validate possible approaches. | Before requirements and the shortlist are final. | Capabilities, constraints, evidence, assumptions, and optional budget or timeline ranges. |
| RFP | Compare detailed solutions to a defined business need. | After the buyer has enough clarity to request proposals. | Proposed solution, delivery plan, commercial terms, and responses to scored requirements. |
| RFQ | Compare prices for a clearly specified product or service. | After scope, quantities, and specifications are stable. | A quote, delivery terms, and stated exceptions. |



Construction teams also use “RFI” for a [project question and response workflow](https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/project-management-information-system/training-project-management-tool/request-for-information) during design or delivery. That document resolves a drawing, specification, or site-condition question. It serves a different purpose from the supplier-discovery RFI used in procurement.



## A Complete Example of an RFI for Software Procurement



This worked example is for a B2B company exploring response automation software. The detail is specific enough to produce comparable answers while leaving vendors room to explain different approaches.



### 1. Header and RFI Status



**Request for Information: Enterprise Response Automation Platform**



**Issued by:** [Organization name]



**RFI owner:** [Name, title, and email]



**Issue date:** [Date]



**Questions due:** [Date]



**Responses due:** [Date and time zone]



This RFI is for information and planning. It is not an offer to contract, a request for proposal, or a commitment to issue a future solicitation. Respondents are responsible for their response costs.



### 2. Business Context and Desired Outcome



[Organization name]’s solutions engineering and security teams answer RFIs, RFPs, and security questionnaires for enterprise sales opportunities. Approved information currently sits across a content library, cloud drives, past responses, and subject matter experts.



[Organization name] is assessing platforms that can create accurate first drafts, preserve source visibility, support cross-functional review, and maintain reusable knowledge. The RFI will help us understand the available approaches, identify mandatory requirements, and decide which vendors should advance to demonstrations or a formal RFP.



### 3. Scope and Response Instructions



Please answer in the sequence provided. Use the response table for each question and keep the main response within 12 pages. Supporting security documentation may be attached separately.



For every capability, state its current availability, relevant limitations, implementation dependencies, and supporting evidence. Label roadmap items clearly. Mark any information you consider confidential according to the submission instructions.



| Response field | What to include |
| --- | --- |
| Capability status | Available, available with configuration, partner-supported, planned, or unavailable. |
| Direct answer | A concise answer to the question before additional context. |
| Evidence | Product documentation, architecture detail, customer example, certification, or other relevant proof. |
| Limitations | Material exclusions, scale limits, dependencies, or manual steps. |
| Ownership | Work performed by the vendor, the customer, or a third party. |



### 4. RFI Questions



- **Knowledge and content management:** How does your platform ingest, retrieve, version, and retire approved answers from our current systems? Explain how reviewers can trace a drafted answer to its sources.



- **Answer generation:** Describe how the platform creates a first draft for an RFI question. Explain how it handles conflicting, outdated, or incomplete source material and how confidence is communicated to reviewers.



- **Workflow:** Show how a project owner imports a questionnaire, assigns specialist questions, manages comments, approves answers, and exports the completed response.



- **Integrations:** Describe current integrations for Salesforce, SharePoint, Google Drive, Slack, and identity providers. Distinguish native integrations from custom or partner work.



- **Security and data handling:** Describe hosting, data residency options, encryption, access controls, audit logs, AI model data handling, and relevant independent assurance reports.



- **Implementation:** Provide a sample implementation plan, customer responsibilities, required roles, training approach, and the assumptions behind your timeline.



- **Scale and support:** Describe tested document sizes, concurrent projects, service levels, support coverage, and escalation paths.



- **Relevant experience:** Provide two examples involving a similar response workflow and explain the starting problem, deployed scope, and measured result.



- **Indicative cost:** Provide a planning range and identify the variables that most affect software, implementation, integration, and ongoing service costs. This request is for budget planning, not a binding quote.



### 5. Process and Next Steps



| Activity | Illustrative timing |
| --- | --- |
| RFI issued. | Day 0. |
| Respondent questions due. | Day 5. |
| Consolidated answers shared with all invited respondents. | Day 8. |
| RFI responses due. | Day 18. |
| Follow-up questions or demonstrations. | Days 21–25. |
| Shortlist decision. | Day 28. |



Scale the response period to the work requested. A short capability screen needs less time than an RFI that requires architecture, security, implementation, references, and cost input from several specialists.



## What a Real Public RFI Looks Like



San Francisco's 2025 [PermitSF technology RFI](https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Request_for_Information_PermitSF_0uFbvmJ.pdf) shows how an issuer can turn a broad modernization goal into an answerable market request. It explains the current problem, desired outcomes, existing systems, scope boundaries, response structure, next-stage showcase, terms, and schedule. The city preferred responses of no more than 10 pages and asked for implementation considerations, references, estimated timeframes, and estimated costs.



![First page of San Francisco's PermitSF technology RFI](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/672fc2345132970736914b73/6a7f65e53ef67610443e2e94_3fdaa722-87d1-48c8-8d77-3918800b5aa6.png)



That example also corrects a common misconception: an RFI may request indicative pricing when the issuer needs budget information. The important boundary is that the answer is informational and does not become a binding quote or contract.



## How to Write an RFI That Produces Comparable Answers



### Start With the Decision the RFI Must Support



Define the decision before writing questions. Examples include whether the market can meet a security constraint, which solution models deserve an RFP, or which requirements separate the shortlist. Remove any question that will not influence that decision.



### Align Stakeholders Before Contacting Vendors



Bring procurement, business owners, technical evaluators, security, legal, finance, and implementation stakeholders into the planning stage as needed. Agree on desired outcomes, mandatory gates, unknowns, evaluation owners, and what information can be shared externally.



### Give Context Without Prescribing the Solution



Describe the current environment, users, scale, problem, desired outcome, constraints, and known dependencies. Keep requirements outcome-led where the market may offer approaches you have not considered. Separate mandatory conditions from preferences.



### Use Layered Questions



A useful question combines three elements:



- **Capability:** Ask whether the vendor supports the required job.



- **Context:** Explain the environment, volume, workflow, or constraint that affects the answer.



- **Evidence:** Request the detail that will substantiate the answer, such as architecture, a customer example, a certification, or a tested limit.



“Do you support single sign-on?” invites a yes. “Describe your current SAML and OIDC support, identity-provider integrations, role provisioning, deprovisioning, and evidence from a comparable deployment” produces information an evaluator can use.



### Standardize the Response Format



Use the same status labels, tables, word limits, and evidence fields for every respondent. A fixed format exposes gaps and reduces the work required to compare different writing styles. Give vendors one contact and share material clarifications consistently across participants.



### Define the Evaluation Before Responses Arrive



Publish the high-level priorities when appropriate, and create the internal scoring guide before evaluators see vendor answers. Assign an owner to each criterion and schedule the review meeting in advance so the responses do not stall in separate inboxes.



## RFI Scoring Matrix and Worked Evaluation



Apply mandatory gates before weighted scoring. A vendor that cannot meet a required deployment, regulatory, integration, or timeline condition should not advance because its narrative score is high.



| Criterion | Weight | Score of 1 | Score of 3 | Score of 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Capability and workflow fit | 35% | Major gaps in the target workflow. | Core workflow is supported with material limitations. | Strong current fit with relevant detail. |
| Technical and security fit | 25% | Mandatory architecture or control gaps. | Requirements are met with dependencies. | Requirements are met with clear evidence and manageable dependencies. |
| Evidence quality | 20% | Assertions lack support. | Some relevant proof is provided. | Specific, current evidence supports the main claims. |
| Implementation readiness | 10% | Ownership and timeline are unclear. | A plausible plan includes open assumptions. | Roles, dependencies, sequence, and risks are explicit. |
| Completeness and clarity | 10% | Material questions are omitted or evasive. | Most questions are answered directly. | Every question is clear, direct, and easy to evaluate. |



Multiply each 1–5 score by its decimal weight and add the results. The weighted total remains on a five-point scale. Evaluators should score independently, record the evidence behind each score, and then discuss large differences.



| Respondent | Capability | Technical and security | Evidence | Implementation | Completeness | Weighted total | Outcome |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor A | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4.25 | Advance. |
| Vendor B | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.05 | Do not advance because a mandatory security gate failed. |
| Vendor C | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3.45 | Resolve named uncertainties before deciding. |



The matrix supports judgment instead of replacing it. Keep each score tied to cited response evidence, record disqualifiers separately, and document follow-up answers that change a rating.



## How RFI Examples Change by Industry



| Application | Information the RFI should emphasize | Example question |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Technology and software | Architecture, integrations, security, data handling, scale, implementation, and roadmap status. | “Describe current API limits and the controls used when customer data moves between your platform and our data warehouse.” |
| Professional services | Methodology, team composition, relevant engagements, availability, conflicts, governance, and commercial model. | “Who would lead the work, what portion would each role perform, and how does the proposed team compare with two similar engagements?” |
| Public sector market research | Agency purpose, procurement disclaimer, accessibility, records treatment, socioeconomic information, and rules specific to the authority. | “Identify contract vehicles and the parts of the requirement that would restrict competition or materially affect cost.” |
| Construction project clarification | Drawing and specification references, conflict or ambiguity, proposed resolution, responsible party, and schedule or cost impact. | “Drawing A-401 conflicts with specification 08 41 13 at the east entrance. Which requirement governs, and does the response change the installation sequence?” |



The construction version belongs in the project's document-control workflow and usually does not use a vendor-shortlisting score. Treating it as a procurement RFI can create confusion about ownership, response deadlines, and contractual effect.



## How Vendors Should Respond to an RFI



Mirror the issuer's numbering and lead each answer with a direct status or conclusion. Support claims with current evidence, distinguish standard capability from custom work, name customer dependencies, and state limits plainly. A precise “partial” answer with a workable mitigation is more useful than an unqualified “yes.”



Response teams should also protect the next stage. Capture open questions, likely evaluation priorities, promised follow-ups, and approved answer language so an eventual RFP starts with stronger context. Our platform helps teams [reuse source-backed knowledge](https://www.arphie.ai/features) across RFIs, RFPs, due diligence questionnaires, and security questionnaires while keeping accountable owners in the review loop.



## When to Move From RFI to RFP



The RFI has done its job when the buyer understands the viable solution models, has resolved major requirement questions, can identify qualified vendors, and has agreed on evaluation criteria for the next stage. Use the responses to refine the RFP rather than repeating the same questions. Ask finalists to go deeper on their stated approach, gaps, dependencies, implementation, and commercial commitments.



If the market cannot meet a mandatory condition, the right next step may be to revise the requirement, change the procurement approach, or stop. An RFP is useful only when the buyer can describe a decision that detailed proposals will support. Our [guide to RFPs and responses](https://www.arphie.ai/blog/what-is-an-rfp-and-how-to-respond-to-rfps) explains that next stage in more detail.