Tips to Write a Better RFI/RFP: Part Two

by Guest Contributor 4 min read April 2, 2021

At some point a lender may need to issue an RFI or an RFP for a credit decisioning system. In this latest installment of “working with vendors” let’s dive into some best practices for writing RFIs and RFPs that will help you more quickly and efficiently understand the capabilities of a vendor.

First, have one person (or at most a very small group) review the document before it goes out to vendors. Too often these kinds of documents seem like they’re just cut and pasted together without any concern if they paint a coherent picture. If it’s worth the time to write an RFI/RFP, then it’s worth the time to get it right so that the vendor responses make sense. If your document paints an inconsistent picture, a vendor may not know what products will best serve your requirements. In turn, precious time will be wasted in discussions around what’s being proposed.

Here are some things to make clear in the document:

  • For what part of the credit life cycle does this RFI/RFP apply (prospecting, origination, account management or collections)? If the request covers more than one part of the life cycle, make clear which questions apply to which part of the life cycle.
  • Do you need a system that processes in batch or real-time requests (or both)? For example, a credit card account management solution can process accounts in batch (for proactive line management), in real time (for reactive requests) or possibly even both. Let the vendor know what it is you’re trying to do, as there may be different systems involved in processing these requests.
  • Do you want this system hosted at the vendor, a third party (like AWS, Azure, etc.) or installed on premises? If you have a preference, let the vendor know. If you have no preference, ask the vendor what they can support.
  • In general, consider playing down or skip detailed pricing questions. There’s nothing wrong with asking for a price range. For credit decisioning systems, detailed pricing is difficult for the vendor since there are often high levels of unknown customization to do. A better question might be, “What things will the vendor have to know in order to accurately price the solution? What are the logical next steps to get more accurate pricing? What’s the typical range of pricing in a solution such as this and what drives that range?”
  • Will you be acting as an aggregator? Sometimes systems are created as front ends to several lenders. For example, a client may want to create a website where a borrower can “shop” among several lenders. This is certainly doable but carries with it a whole host of legal, compliance, business and technical questions. In my opinion, I’d skip the RFI/RFP in this situation and have a robust sit down directly with the vendors. This option will likely be far more productive.
  • Ask more open-ended questions. “How does the solution perform task X?” as opposed to, “Do you support Y?” Often, there’s more than one way to accomplish a task. Asking more open-ended questions will yield a more comprehensive answer from the vendor rather than a simple yes or no response. It also gives you the opportunity to learn about the latest decisioning techniques.
  • Be careful that you have not copied old RFP questions that are no longer relevant. I’ve had clients ask if we support Bernoulli Boxes (a mid-80s kind of floppy disk), or whether we support OS/2, etc. I’ve even had questions about supporting a particular printer. These kinds of questions are centered on the support of the operating system and not a particular vendor’s credit decisioning software. Instead of asking yes/no technology questions, ask for a typical sample architecture. Ask what kinds of APIs are supported (REST, SOAP/XML, etc.). Ask about the solution’s capabilities to call third-party systems (both internal and external). Ask fewer, but more in-depth questions.
  • If the solution needs screens, be clear which screens you’re talking about. Do you need screens to make rule adjustments or configuration changes? Do you need screens for manual review or some sort of case management? Do you need consumer-facing screens where borrowers can type in their application data? If you need screens, be clear on the task the screens should perform.
  • If you have particular concerns, ask them in an open-ended way. For example, “The solution will have to exchange file-based data with a mainframe. How can your solution best satisfy this requirement?” In general, state your requirement not the technology to use.
  • A preamble or brief executive summary is useful to get the big picture across before the vendor delves into any questions. A paragraph or two can go a long way to help the vendor better assess your requirements and provide more meaningful answers to you. This works well because it’s easier to give the big picture in a few paragraphs as opposed to sprinkled around in multiple questions.

To summarize, be clear on your requirements and provide a more open-ended format for the vendor to respond. This will save both you and the vendor a lot of time. In section three, I’ll cover evaluating vendors.

Related Posts

How Consumer Vehicle Choices Are Shaping Automotive Loan Trends

Conversations about rising auto loan balances and higher monthly payments has often centered around increasing vehicle prices and elevated interest rates; and while those factors have undoubtedly played a role, another important piece of the puzzle is the type of vehicles consumers are choosing to purchase. According to Experian’s Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026, consumers are continuing to opt for SUVs over other vehicle types, a trend that may be contributing to higher average loan amounts and monthly payments. SUVs accounted for 63.5% of all new retail vehicle registrations over the last 12 months, up from 62.8% a year ago. Additionally, more than 117 million SUVs were in operation across the United States in the first quarter of 2026, making up 42.2% of the market share. At the same time, traditional passenger cars continue to fall in share, coming in at 16.5%, a decrease from 18.4% last year. As consumers increasingly gravitate towards the larger vehicle segment, it reflects the ongoing desire for versatility, cargo capacity, and family-friendly functionality. Electrification’s growing role in consumer purchasing behavior Interestingly, electrified SUVs continue to gain traction, representing 27.7% of all new SUV registrations, these vehicles include battery-electric, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and other alternative fuel types. Diving a bit deeper, the Tesla Model Y was the market share leader for new, retail electrified SUV registrations in the last 12 months, coming in at 15.8%. Rounding out the top five were Honda CR-V (9.6%), Toyota RAV4 (7.2%), Chevrolet Trax (7.2%), and Toyota Grand Highlander (3.4%). As model availability and familiarity with the electrification segment grows, the broader adoption of these vehicles are playing an increasingly important role in vehicle pricing and overall consumer demand. While average loan amounts and monthly payments are being driven by a combination of factors such as financing costs and consumer purchasing behavior, data in Q1 2026 demonstrates the continued interest in SUVs. This suggests that the industry’s shift toward larger vehicles is likely playing a meaningful role in today’s financing environment. To learn more about SUV insights, view the full Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026 presentation.

Published: June 17, 2026 by Kirsten Von Busch
When New Data Impacts MBS Pricing: Student Loan Debt

In our previous post, we described the Current Second Lien Balance field, which is one of over 2,000 fields in the new Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset. We showed that the Current Second Lien Balance field meets our three-pronged materiality standard for new data delivery: New: Provides information not available in existing datasets (i.e., orthogonal to currently available data). Material: Impacts a sizeable portion of the MBS universe. Significant: Differentiates collateral performance by a large enough margin to influence trading and risk management decisions. In this article, we discuss another field that satisfies the above criteria: Student Loan Balance.  We evaluate this field in the context of these criteria. First, however, we provide a summary of the MLP dataset and how it compares to standard GSE loan-level data available today. Standard GSE Data vs. Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) Data The MLP dataset contains thousands of fields describing mortgage performance from each borrower, loan, and property perspective, all refreshed monthly (including, amongst other things, new credit scores and refinance inquiry activity, loan performance, filed junior liens, and AVM values).  MLP differs from loan-level data provided byFreddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae, which the vast majority of market participants solely rely on, in a number of ways: Standard data provided by the GSEs and GNMA does not contain all the information necessary for accurate forecasting of mortgage prepayment and credit performance. Basic, critical fields like borrower’s current credit score and current junior liens on the property are missing. The new Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset from Experian contains borrower, loan, and property data fields covering the entire mortgage universe, including Agency, Non-Agency, and Esoteric mortgage products (CES, HELOC, Reverse), both securitized and non-securitized. MLP enables full three-dimensional (borrower + loan + property) tracking with persistent keys for borrower (before and after refinancing), loan (in securities/deals even after exit due to payoffs or buyouts, including before and after MSR sales), and property.  This enables end-to-end analysis of each borrower’s (and property’s) mortgage experience throughout their credit lifecycle. New, Material and Significant Field:  Student Loan Debt MLP contains a number of fields describing each mortgage borrower’s student debt load, including amounts in repayment, forbearance and collections; estimated interest rate, time remaining until forbearance expiration, and more. In the interest of simplicity, for this article we’ll focus on a single student loan-related field within MLP: Student Loans Balance, which is defined as the total balance on open non-deferred student trades reported in the last 3 months. Is Information Regarding Student Loans New to Markets? Standard loan-level data disclosed by the GSEs and GNMA contain no student-loan-specific fields. Theoretically, fields related to DTI at origination might capture some aspect of student loan debt. So, in the best case scenario for an investor relying solely on standard disclosure, a DTI value as of origination is provided -- yet is never updated as the loan seasons and the borrower’s debt and income change (see more here).  But in the case of federal student loan debt attached to mortgages originated from early 2020 to late 2023, the level of detail provided by disclosure may be even more unknown due to COVID-era repayment and reporting moratoriums. The student loan repayment moratorium was a temporary federal policy that paused required payments, set interest rates to 0%, and suspended collections on most federally-held student loans. The moratorium began in March 2020, with payments resuming in October 2023, making it approximately 3.5 years in duration—the longest consumer credit payment pause in U.S. history. (Source: NCUA ) During the moratorium, student loan-related debt loads may have been understated as federal loans were in a temporary state of $0 repayment.  As an alternative to leaving student loan debt completely out of DTI calculations, an imputed payment equal to only 0.50% of the outstanding balance was often used as a placeholder for a borrower’s DTI calculation. As a result, mortgages originated during the moratorium may have artificially low reported DTIs for borrowers with student loan debt, materially understating true post-moratorium debt .  Accordingly, prepayment risk for these loans is likely overstated in mainstream market models. Standard data only reports information related to the primary mortgage and does not include any details on the borrower’s other debts with the exception of DTI at origination, which is never updated throughout the life of the loan. In contrast, MLP provides a comprehensive view of the borrower’s full credit profile, including other obligations such as credit cards, mortgages on other properties, student loan balances, and much more. Is Student Loan debt material to the residential mortgage market? Approximately $11 trillion of residential mortgage loans were originated during the student loan payment moratorium (Source: Experian MLP Dataset), a period marked by historically low mortgage rates during the COVID era.  As discussed above, DTI data contained in standard market disclosure may be particularly inaccurate for these loans. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, a new report from the Federal Reserve of New York shows a rise in student loan default rates by age group.  Student l Of today’s $13 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt, more than 10% of that debt ($1.5 trillion) is associated with borrowers who carry student loan debt.  For these borrowers, the average amount of student loan debt outstanding is approximately $50,000, versus a mortgage balance of approximately ~$289,000. In other words, the average student loan debt balance is almost 20% of the mortgage balance for the average borrower who carries both. For this set of borrowers, the average monthly payment is approximately $400 for student loan vs. approximately $2,200 for 1st lien mortgage—so that monthly student loan payments are a significant debt load, approximately 20% of the monthly mortgage payment.  (Source:  Experian MLP Dataset) Is the effect of student loan debt a significant driver of performance? Figure 1 illustrates prepayments by student loan balance for a sample of loans drawn from MLP. The chart illustrates that borrowers with larger student loan balances prepay much more slowly, likely because some are effectively locked out of refinancing once student loan payments resume due to elevated DTI. The debt-to-income (DTI) ratio calculated using actual student loan payments may be significantly higher than the DTI calculated during the moratorium, in some cases exceeding GSE eligibility thresholds. As illustrated in Figure 1, for in-the-money (ITM) collateral, the differential between loans with material student loan balances (greater than $200,000) and loans with no student debt can reach up to 5 CPR. Notably, even for out-of-the-money (OTM) collateral, loans with student debt prepay 1 to 3 CPR slower, likely reflecting reduced mobility due to tighter financing constraints when purchasing a new home. Pools with otherwise similar prepayment characteristics may exhibit different prepayment behavior depending on the distribution of student loan exposure within their collateral. In addition, because loans with student debt tend to prepay more slowly, this effect increases over time due to burnout: loans without student debt prepay and exit the pools more quickly, leaving a higher concentration of slower-paying loans behind.  Given that 10% of the $13 trillion outstanding mortgage market is associated with borrowers who have student loans (Source:  Experian MLP dataset)—and that student loans have a meaningful impact on prepayments—many pools issued between March 2020 and October 2023 may be subject to this student loan debt CPR throttle, and therefore mispriced by investors relying exclusively on standard market data. Fig 1. Prepayment S-Curve: Student Loans Balance Source:  Experian MLP dataset hosted on IVolatility Data-Driven Platform   _____________________________________________________ Michael Pyatski advises MBS traders, portfolio managers, quants, risk managers, loan originators, and technology professionals on making informed, data-driven business decisions that drive revenue growth, enhance risk management, and reduce trading costs. With more than 15 years of experience as an Agency RMBS trader—including serving as Head of the Proprietary Trading Desk at BNP Paribas—Michael developed and successfully implemented relative-value, data-driven profitable trading strategies to capture market opportunities embedded in data but not fully priced by the market. His trading experience, combined with a Ph.D. in econometrics, led him to found the Data-Driven Portal (https://datadrivenportal.com/), a platform that provides advanced technology for MBS trading and risk management. The platform’s No-Model Data-Driven technology leverages big data, econometric analysis, and AI to help traders identify relative-value opportunities in RMBS markets and generate above-market, risk-adjusted returns. _____________________________________________________

Published: June 17, 2026 by Perry DeFelice
Empowering merchants to reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks

Reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks with data-driven strategies that help merchants prevent disputes, protect revenue and improve customer trust.

Published: June 15, 2026 by Charles Hunter