Loading...

Do You Even Need to Issue an RFI or RFP?

by Guest Contributor 4 min read March 18, 2021

Perhaps your loan origination system (LOS) doesn’t have the flexibility that you require. Perhaps the rules editor can’t segment variables in the manner that you need. Perhaps your account management system can’t leverage the right data to make decisions. Or perhaps your existing system is getting sunset. These are just some of the many reasons a company may want to investigate the marketplace for new credit decisioning software.

But RFIs and RFPs aren’t the only way to find new decisioning software.

After working in credit services decisioning for over 20 years — and seeing hundreds of RFPs and presenting thousands of solutions and proposed architectures — I’ve formed a few opinions about how I would go about things if I were in the customer’s seat and have broken that into a three-part series. Part 1 will cover everything up to issuing an RFI or RFP. Part 2 will discuss writing an RFP or RFI. Part 3 will cover evaluating vendors. Let’s go.

If you’re looking to buy new decisioning software, your first inclination might be to issue an RFI or an RFP. However, that may not be the best idea. Here’s an issue that I frequently see. Vendors are constantly evolving their products. How a product did feature X two years ago might be completely different now. The terminology that the industry uses might have changed, and new capabilities (like machine learning) might have come about and changed whole sets of functionalities. The first decision point is to ask yourself a question, “Do I know exactly what I want or am I trying to generally learn what is out there?

An RFI or RFP isn’t always the greatest way to exchange information about a product. From a vendor’s standpoint, a feature-rich, complex system has to be reduced down to a few text answers or (worst yet) a series of yes or no answers. It all boils down to nuance. On many occasions, I’ve faced a dilemma when answering an RFP question, “This question is unclear; if the customer means X, the answer is yes; if they mean Y, the answer is no.” If I were in a room with the customer, I could ask them the question, they could provide clarification and I could then provide the accurate answer. There would be more opportunity to have a back and forth, “Oh when you said X, this is what you meant ….” All of that back and forth is lost with an RFI or RFP, or at least delayed until the (hopefully selected) vendor gets a chance to present in front of a live audience.

Also, consider that vendors are eager to educate you about their product. They know exactly how the product works and they’re happy to answer your questions. It’s perfectly reasonable to go to a vendor with prewritten questions and thoughts and to pose those questions during a call or demonstration with the vendor. Nothing would prevent a customer from using the same questions for each vendor and evaluating them based on their answers. All of this can be done without issuing an RFI or RFP.

In conclusion, I’d offer the following points to think about before issuing an RFI or RFP:

  • A customer can provide questions that they want answered during a demonstration of a credit decisioning product. These same questions can be used to provide an initial assessment of several vendors.
  • A customer’s understanding of a vendor’s capabilities is likely 10x faster and deeper with an interactive session versus reading the answers in a questionnaire. Nuanced and follow-up questions can be asked to gather a complete understanding. Alternative solutions can be explored.
  • This exercise doesn’t have to replace an RFP but instead can better inform the customer about the questions they need answered in order to issue an RFP.

Don’t be afraid to talk to a vendor, even if you’re not sure what you want in a new product. In fact, talk to several vendors. More than likely, you’ll learn a lot more via a discussion than you will via an RFI questionnaire. What’s good about an RFI or RFP is coming in with prepared questions. That way, you can judge each vendor using the same criteria but, if possible, get the answers to those questions via an interactive session with the vendors.

Next: How to write an effective RFP or RFI.

Related Posts

Lending hasn’t slowed down—but many decisioning processes have. Applications are coming in faster. Fraud is becoming more sophisticated. Borrowers expect near-instant responses. And yet, inside many organizations, decisions are still being made across fragmented systems, manual reviews, and rigid strategies that weren’t designed and aren’t optimized for today’s environment. That broadening gap isn’t just an operational issue but often stems from a lack of innovation as well. And it’s quietly costing lenders growth, efficiency, and competitive position. When decisioning falls behind, some symptoms are easy to recognize, like applications taking days to process, teams overloaded with manual reviews, and credit and fraud decisions happening in separate platforms. Others are not as obvious, but arguably more impactful, slipping bottom lines and fraud and therefore losses lurking in lenders’ portfolios. The root issue is a fragmented infrastructure. Experian has reported that while 79% of financial institutions surveyed globally want fewer vendors or more unified approaches, they typically use eight or more tools across credit, fraud and compliance. As most decisioning environments cannot integrate data, adapt strategies, and execute decisions in real time, lenders often have to make tradeoffs. Speed vs. accuracy; growth vs. risk; and automation vs. control are just some. Meanwhile, the market has moved on. Leading lenders are no longer optimizing individual steps. They’re rethinking decisioning as a connected, intelligent system. Gaps forming from status quo in 8 key decision areas Across the lending lifecycle, there are eight critical moments where decisioning can either accelerate growth or create friction. Pre-qualification: Pre-qualification should expand your funnel with confidence. But limited data access and static criteria often result in overly conservative targeting or missed opportunities. Additionally, the delay in acting on a pre-qualification funnel highlights a key area for opportunity among many lenders. Instant credit decisions: Customers expect real-time outcomes. When decisions rely on manual intervention or fragmented inputs, speed and conversions suffer. Prescreen and targeting: Disconnected data and rigid segmentation can lead to poorly aligned offers, reducing response rates and wasting acquisition spend. Credit line management: Without dynamic strategies, credit lines may be too restrictive (limiting growth) or too aggressive (increasing risk). Early delinquency management: Missed early signals and delayed interventions make it harder to prevent accounts from deteriorating. Mid- and late-stage delinquency: Strategies that don’t adapt to evolving borrower behavior reduce recovery effectiveness and increase losses. Collections and recovery: Manual, one-size-fits-all approaches limit recovery rates and increase operational cost. Ongoing strategy optimization: Perhaps the most overlooked gap: many lenders lack the ability to continuously test, learn, and refine decision strategies as conditions change. What these gaps are really costing you Individually, each of these breakdowns may seem manageable. Together, they can create systemic drag on performance. That shows up in four critical ways: Missed growth opportunities: Good borrowers are declined, abandoned, or never targeted in the first place. Credit offers fail to align with actual borrower potential. Higher operational costs: Manual reviews and disconnected workflows consume time and resources that could be spent on higher-value work. Increased fraud exposure and friction: Fraud is proliferating and becoming more expensive to manage. The Federal Trade Commission reported $12.5B were lost to fraud in the U.S. in 2024, a 25% increase over the prior year. For many financial institutions, the first reaction is often to add more steps to the decisioning process, which can impact good borrowers. Increased competitive pressure: Fintechs and modern lenders are focused on delivering faster, more personalized experiences, capturing share while traditional processes lag behind. 80% of banks and credit unions plan to increase their technology spending in 2026, yet many continue to fall short on planned system deployments, according to Cornerstone Advisors’ annual “What’s Going On in Banking” research report. What innovative decisioning leaders are doing differently Leading lenders are changing how decisions are made, creating a competitive advantage. Instead of stitching together point solutions, they’re adopting a more integrated approach that brings together: Comprehensive data – including both credit and fraud insights Optimized decision strategies – designed to balance growth and risk Real-time execution – enabling faster, more consistent outcomes Continuous optimization – adapting to changing market conditions Strategic partnerships – leveraging third-party industry expertise to augment their own This shift eliminates the need for tradeoffs and instead allows lenders to increase approvals while maintaining control, reducing manual effort while improving consistency, and responding faster without sacrificing confidence. The stakes are high and the competition for consumers is even higher, particularly against a backdrop of ever-evolving fraud risks, continuously increasing consumer expectations for seamless, digital-first experiences and often limited resources. Nearly half of banks and 59% of credit unions have already deployed generative AI, with more investing now, according to the Cornerstone Advisors’ report. Closing the innovation gap requires a more fundamental shift toward decisioning systems that are connected, scalable, and built for continuous change. A new foundation for decisioning This is where platforms like Experian Decisioning are changing the landscape. By bringing together credit and fraud insights, decision strategies, and a flexible technology architecture, lenders can move beyond fragmented processes and build a more unified, intelligent decisioning approach. One that fits within existing systems but also evolves with your needs. Where to start Impactful change doesn’t need to be an overhaul of everything at once for most organizations. The first step is understanding where your biggest gaps exist, and which decision areas are creating the most friction or missed opportunity. Once you can see where decisioning is not optimized, you can begin to redesign it in a way that’s faster and more adept for what lending has become. By making better decisions, faster, and with greater confidence, lenders can process applications more efficiently and also break away from the pack by leveraging decisioning as a strategic advantage. Learn more

by Stefani Wendel 4 min read March 26, 2026

Learn how GenAI is reshaping financial services from customer engagement to compliance, leading to improved decisions and operations.

by Masood Akhtar 4 min read December 4, 2024

Reject inferencing techniques unlock a more comprehensive view of your applicant pool for more informed underwriting decisions. 

by Julie Lee 4 min read September 17, 2024