Loading...

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

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