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

Building for Bots in the AI Age: Separating Legitimate Agents From Fraudsters

See how NeuroID helps businesses distinguish legitimate AI agents from fraud bots, while Agent Trust verifies agent-initiated transactions.

October 29, 2026 by Laura Burrows
2026 Retail Banking Identity and Fraud Report 

Learn how banks can convert rising fraud investment into protection customers recognize, value and feel in our recent report. Read more!

October 28, 2026 by Laura Burrows
One Platform, Fewer Handoffs, Faster Decisions

The average credit union manages between 100-300 vendor relationships, and nearly a third have no dedicated staff managing them. What was supposed to drive efficiency is stunting growth and compromising the member experience. Application volume is continuing to rise, and consumers expect a loan decision at digital speed. But for credit unions, meeting that expectation isn't the only goal. They must also continue to make the right lending decisions while also prioritizing risk management. The institutions pulling ahead aren't the ones with the most tools. They're the ones that have turned credit, fraud and decisioning into a single, coordinated system. A single loan decision touches: Credit data Identity verification Fraud signals Decisioning logic Reporting Rarely does all of that live in one place. More often, it’s stitched together across separate platforms, each with its own contract and its own support line. When a credit view and a fraud view are generated separately, they must be reconciled instead of read together in the same instant. Every handoff is a place where a decision slows down and a signal gets missed. It's why a fraud pattern that would be obvious next to the credit file often surfaces only after the funds are already gone. Fragmentation also makes it harder to optimize lending strategies over time. When data, analytics and decisioning are disconnected, credit unions have less visibility into what's working, what's changing and where strategies need to be adjusted. An integrated decisioning ecosystem closes those seams by design, with credit, fraud and lending strategy running on one platform and accessed through a single Application Programming Interface (API). Identity and compliance capabilities can be an integrated decisioning flow. The data doesn't need to be reconciled after the fact because it was never separated in the first place. Stop overengineering, start removing friction When decisioning underperforms, the instinct is to build something more custom: a proprietary model, tighter segmentation, more configuration.  Custom modeling has its place for institutions with the scale and data to justify it. But often, for small or mid-sized credit unions, the bigger opportunity is a flexible decisioning strategy that uses a strong, continuously refreshed model. This shouldn't be either/or. The right approach gives credit unions a strong decisioning strategy today, with the ability to introduce more customized analytics and modeling as their needs evolve.  The same principle applies to strategy management: credit unions can gain greater control through self-service capabilities as they build a more sophisticated data science team.   That kind of flexibility is important as credit unions modernize their decisioning infrastructure. Research surveying more than 2,000 senior credit risk and fraud decision-makers across 11 countries found that organizations investing in unified platforms and modern infrastructure are moving faster and realizing the greatest Return on Investment (ROI).   As their needs evolve, credit unions can adjust decisioning strategies without introducing another layer of technology or relying on third parties to make every change. Until self-service is the right fit, choose a partner that understands what makes your credit union’s membership and risk appetite different from others.  Same member, same afternoon, faster answer Consider a credit union growing its auto and personal loan originations.  A member applies for an auto loan on Saturday afternoon. Credit data, identity and fraud signals are read together in a single real-time pass instead of separate reviews:  Most applications resolve immediately, approved or declined based on a more comprehensive view of the applicant. A smaller number are flagged for quick step-up verification and cleared within minutes. Only genuinely ambiguous cases reach an underwriter, who is working from one complete picture instead of reconciling multiple signals. The member has an answer before the weekend is over. The credit union books the loan before competitors even open on Monday. Built to scale This kind of process holds up today. However, the better test is whether it holds up eighteen months from now when application volume has grown, new products are live and the data flowing through the system looks nothing like it does right now. Future-proofing isn't only about handling more volume. It's about having room to be nimbler and make adjustments as quickly as the market changes. A credit union that relies on standard models within a decisioning strategy may want more customized analytics and greater control over its strategies tomorrow. Connect with us With more than three decades of credit expertise and one of the industry's largest data footprints, Experian helps credit unions do more than solve this year's friction. We're helping to build a decisioning foundation that scales, so growth becomes something the system absorbs, rather than something it must be rebuilt around. Explore More

October 21, 2026 by Zohreen Ismail

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe