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

Empowering merchants to reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks

When disputes become a fraud strategy  First-party fraud is quietly reshaping the risk landscape for merchants. Unlike third-party fraud, it originates from the consumer, often through a dispute that triggers a chargeback. Mastercard’s research highlights a shift in consumer dispute behavior: when consumers dispute a transaction and later realize it was a mistake, many do not rectify their error and reverse the dispute. Across 4,500 surveyed consumers, 775 admitted to disputing a transaction, and up to 37% admitted to not correcting a mistaken dispute (consumer fraud originates with). Convenience remains the driving force for consumers, who increasingly turn to their bank first when a transaction looks questionable rather than contacting the merchant. In fact, 76% of consumers prefer resolving disputes through their bank rather than the merchant. This removes the merchant’s ability to resolve the issue and avoid costly chargebacks, creating higher operational costs and risk exposure. This is especially problematic considering ClearSale estimates that 40% of consumers who request a chargeback will do so again within 90 days.  What could be causing more consumers to use the dispute process?  Mastercard’s consumer research sheds light into the shift of behavior. Among Gen Z, 26% admitted they did not contact the merchant or app to return funds after realizing the dispute was wrong, compared with 22% of Millennials and 18% of Gen X. What’s driving this trend? Globally, chargebacks are on the rise, projected to reach 324 million transactions by 2028, a 24% increase over 2025 estimates, according to Mastercard. So, what is driving this trend? Economic pressure  U.S. household debt reached $18.39 trillion in Q2 2025, with credit card balances at $1.21 trillion (up $27 billion in a quarter). At the same time, 39% of households report declining income, and 70% expect a recession within 12 months. These pressures make short-term financial relief, even through disputes — tempting.  BNPL and buyer’s remorse  Buy now,pay later (BNPL) usage is surging 52% of U.S. consumers have used BNPL in 2025, and Gen Z leads the trend, with 59% opting for BNPL. The average BNPL borrower originated 9.5 loans in a year, often stacking multiple loans across providers. This creates a cycle of deferred pain and buyer remorse, which can lead to disputes. Lack of transparency and complex subscription models   One of the most significant accelerators of first-party fraud is the ease with which consumers can file disputes today. According to Mastercard's 2025 State of Chargeback Report, mobile banking apps and digital wallets have transformed dispute initiation from a multistep process into something that can be completed in seconds. If the consumer doesn’t recognize a transaction or the name of the merchant, they are able to raise a dispute in a couple of taps. Recurring billing models and complex subscription models also amplifies the problem. If a consumer forgets about a subscription service or doesn’t recognize a billing descriptor, this can lead to a dispute that could have been avoided with better transparency.  “Disputes are no longer just a backend operational issue — they’re becoming a frontline fraud vector. When consumers default to their bank instead of the merchant, context is lost, resolution slows, and chargebacks escalate. The opportunity now is to reintroduce transparency and collaboration earlier in the journey, so issues are resolved before they turn into costly disputes.” Gaurav Mittal, Executive Vice President of Ethoca at Mastercard Dispute systems designed for consumer protection can sometimes be misused, increasing the frequency of disputes. As card-not-present transactions grow, protecting against both third-party fraud and first-party fraud is essential.   The solution: tools consumers want — and merchants need Consumers aren’t opposed to security. In fact, 85% prioritize security over convenience, and 83% expect businesses to address their security and privacy concerns. They want visible and invisible protections that make them feel safe without slowing them down.  Merchants can meet this expectation, and reduce fraud, by adding intelligent safeguards at checkout: Behavioral biometrics: In Experian’s consumer survey, consumers ranked behavioral biometrics among the most trusted methods (72% feel it’s secure). These tools analyze typing speed, mouse movement, and hesitation patterns to distinguish genuine users from bots or fraudsters, invisibly and in real time. Physical biometrics: 76% of consumers trust physical biometrics (fingerprint, facial recognition) more than passwords. Offering biometric login or checkout options gives consumers confidence while reducing reliance on vulnerable credentials.  Passive identity verification: Experian’s patented account ownership verification matches payment card numbers to identity attributes without requiring extra input. This protects merchants from stolen card fraud while keeping checkout friction low. Device and network intelligence: Secondary device checks and network analysis can silently validate identity during guest checkout or BNPL flows, reducing risk without slowing conversion.   Enhancing transaction clarity: Consumers are open to sharing more data for security: 77% would share more when shopping online, and 76% with financial institutions. Secure, real-time data exchange between merchants and issuers, such as through Mastercard’s First-Party Trust program, can strengthen fraud detection and reduce false declines.  Better purchase recognition: Improving purchase recognition in digital banking apps can help reduce disputes caused by consumers confusing their own transactions. Providing clear purchase descriptors, itemized receipts and better subscription management gives users the details they need to understand their purchase history and prevent first-party fraud.  “Reducing first-party fraud isn’t about adding friction; it’s about adding clarity. When merchants can surface the right information at the right moment, they not only prevent disputes, but they also strengthen trust and protect long-term customer relationships.” Gaurav Mittal, Executive Vice President of Ethoca at Mastercard Closing thought  First-party fraud’s impact extends beyond operations, affecting profitability, customer trust and brand reputation. Merchants that act now to strengthen checkout security with visible and invisible protections will reduce losses, protect trust and deliver the seamless experiences consumers expect. Learn more Read part 1

Published: June 15, 2026 by Charles Hunter
Fuel Type Choices Continue to Reshape Vehicle Registration Trends

Electric vehicle (EV) registration growth has become a common topic of discussion throughout the automotive industry for the last few years, but the bigger story may lie in what consumers are choosing when they return to market for their next vehicle. According to Experian’s Automotive Market Trends Report: Q1 2026, the bulk of EV owners (72.6%) purchased another EV, while 17.7% replaced their EV with a gas-powered vehicle and 5.6% switched to a hybrid this quarter. A similar trend was seen in hybrid owners, as 54.9% remained loyal to the fuel type through the quarter, while 32.7% replaced their hybrid with a gas-powered vehicle and 7.5% switched to an EV. Notably, 78.2% of consumers with gas-powered vehicles stayed with the same fuel type, with 5.6% swapping their gas vehicle for a hybrid and only 4.5% transitioning to an EV through Q1 2026. These purchase styles suggest that while most consumers are not making a direct leap from gasoline to fully electric vehicles, some are beginning their electrified journey through hybrid ownership. At the same time, the high rate of fuel-type loyalty across all powertrain categories highlights the importance of the ownership experience. Consumers who are satisfied with their current vehicle can often be inclined to remain with the same segment rather than exploring alternative fuel types. New vehicle registration trends reflect changing consumer preferences Looking at the new vehicle registration data from a broader level, gas-powered vehicles experienced a slight uptick, coming in at 69.5% through Q1 2026, from 67.3% last year. Meanwhile, hybrids continue to grow, going from 12.1% to 13.5% year-over-year while EVs steadily decline from 7.8% last year to 5.6% this quarter. As consumers weigh their next vehicle purchase, many seem to be sticking with the standard gas-powered choice, and others are finding a happy medium in hybrid vehicles. And while EVs receive much of the industry’s attention, buyers are exploring alternatives that allow them to adopt the electrified vehicles incrementally rather than all at once. To learn more about vehicle market trends, view the full Automotive Market Trends Report: Q1 2026 presentation on demand.

Published: June 12, 2026 by John Howard
Rewriting the Road Ahead with Longer Loan Terms and Increased Refinancing Options

The automotive market is entering a new phase defined not just by what consumers are buying, but by how they’re choosing to finance it. According to Experian Automotive’s State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q1 2026, nearly one-third (35.55%) of all new vehicle loans now stretch more than six years, up from 30.83% in Q1 2025. Similarly on the used side, 31.54% of loans extended more than six years, an increase from 28.60% last year. The shift highlights why affordability is reshaping how consumers are financing their vehicles, particularly in larger and higher-priced vehicles. Refinancing gains traction as interest rates stabilize In addition to longer-term loans, consumers are becoming increasingly deliberate with their financing decisions and managing monthly payments as refinancing activity has gained momentum. For instance, consumers who refinanced this quarter lowered their interest rate by 2.2% and saved an average of $81 on their monthly payment. Credit unions, in particular, continued to play a major role in helping consumers secure more affordable payment options. In Q1 2025, credit unions accounted for the lion’s share of automotive refinancing at 63.43%, from 62.31% a year ago. By comparison, banks went from 23.51% to 22.59% year-over-year. Furthermore, those who refinanced with a credit union saved an average of $101 this quarter, whereas those who refinanced with banks saved $60. Expanding credit access through flexible financing Another notable trend this quarter was the incessant growth in subprime financing as credit accessibility across the market continues to increase. In the first quarter of this year, subprime borrowers made up 15.75% of total vehicle financing, from 14.40% last year. For new vehicles in particular, the subprime market went from 5.61% to 6.88% year-over-year, while subprime in used vehicle financing grew to 20.60% this quarter, from 19.36% a year ago. Increased activity in the subprime segment highlights continued confidence in the automotive market and underscores the importance of expanded financing options. As consumers seek greater flexibility with financing decisions that fit their lifestyle, lenders and dealers have the opportunity to approach them with more personalized solutions. These trends are helping keep both new and used vehicle markets moving forward, while creating new opportunities for consumers to manage payments and purchase confidently. To learn more about automotive finance trends, view the full State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q1 2026 presentation on demand.

Published: June 2, 2026 by Melinda Zabritski