This buyer-side request for information, or RFI, turns those unknowns into specific questions. Ask for the capability, its limits, and the information needed to clarify the answer. The worked example uses supplier responses to prepare a better scope for a future request for proposals.
Describe what you know and what you still need to learn
The original fictional case is a community archive exploring a collection-description workflow. It has a catalog CSV with recordID, title, and sourceReference fields, plus JPEG images.
The storage size, access needs, and migration exceptions are not yet known. Those gaps matter when asking a supplier to describe capability or estimate setup effort.
Use a short RFI background:
| Section | Worked content |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Learn how suppliers could support the collection-description workflow before defining a later proposal request. |
| Known material | Catalog CSV with recordID, title, sourceReference; JPEG images. |
| Information still to confirm | Storage size, access needs, record/image exceptions, and setup inputs. |
| Requested response | Specific capability, supported formats, limitations, a relevant example or reference, and clarification needed. |
| Administrative details | Actual contact, response arrangements, and date remain to supply. |
Arizona State University's RFI guidance describes RFIs as a way to verify needs and improve the scope of a future RFP. The questions and archive case here are original examples, not an issued purchasing request.
Replace the broad question with three targeted ones
Select Q1, Q2, or Q3 in the example to follow the unknown through to a possible scope decision:
| Question | Ask the supplier to explain | What the answer can help define |
|---|---|---|
| Q1: Which file and metadata formats can this workflow accept? | Supported file types and field structures, required mapping, and known limits for the supplied CSV and JPEG material. | The explicit file and metadata list a later scope must cover. |
| Q2: How are unmatched records and images reported and reviewed? | How an unmatched pair is identified, what report or review information is available, and which work remains with archive staff. | The exception-review process and division of work. |
| Q3: What inputs and assumptions are needed to estimate setup and support? | Required inventory details, access information, preparation work, support expectations, and unresolved assumptions. | What the archive needs to establish before requesting a comparable offer. |
Each question addresses information the buyer needs. A later RFP can request an offer against a more defined scope once those questions have been examined.
Give suppliers a response structure that exposes gaps
For each question, provide fields for the capability claim, exact supported formats or conditions, limitations, example or reference, and clarification needed.
The example compares two fictional snippets:
| Snippet | What it states | What remains unanswered |
|---|---|---|
| A: “CSV import is supported.” | A capability claim about CSV import. | Which field structures and mappings are supported; how image matching works. |
| B: “We support all formats.” | A broad claim without a listed format set. | Whether the supplied CSV fields and JPEG workflow are actually covered, and under what conditions. |
Snippet A's silence on images is not evidence that image matching works. Snippet B's broad assurance is not a substitute for a format list. Keep both follow-up questions visible instead of selecting a winner from incomplete responses.
Turn the information into a scope note
The worked findings-to-scope note is:
Before preparing the RFP, define the file and metadata list explicitly and describe how unmatched record/image pairs must be reported and reviewed. Confirm the remaining inventory and access inputs needed for setup estimates.
That note describes what the buyer still needs to establish. It does not adopt an unsupported supplier claim as a requirement or decide which product to purchase.
A business requirements document can explain the internal outcome and stakeholder needs. This RFI does different work: it asks outside suppliers for capability facts that help the buyer refine those needs into a feasible scope.
Prepare your own information request
Create one complete, self-contained HTML buyer-side RFI preparation copy.
Business purpose and workflow being explored: [PASTE]
Known materials, formats, fields, volumes, and context: [PASTE]
Unknowns that affect the future scope: [LIST]
Supplier questions and the decision each answer will inform: [PASTE]
Requested response fields: [PASTE]
Actual contact, response arrangements, and date: [FILL IN OR LEAVE BLANK]
Supplier excerpts and source references, if received: [PASTE OR LEAVE BLANK]
Build a background summary, targeted questions, and response structure.
For each question, show unknown, question, response fields, and possible
scope implication. Ask for capability, exact supported conditions,
limitations, example/reference, and clarification needed.
Compare vague and targeted wording. When supplied, show response
excerpts beside their unresolved questions. Do not infer support from
silence or invent supplier evidence, pricing, budget, or a selected winner.
Keep a findings-to-scope note separate from supplier claims.
Include a blank preparation scaffold requiring purpose, question, and
intended decision. Preserve temporary notes when switching questions,
mark old review output stale after edits, and ask before resetting.
No Send, Submit, Award, supplier score, or saved-procurement claim.
Use the organization's actual process for issuing a request.
Use text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls, and
a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS and
JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Review what each answer would change
Ask the archive team whether Q1 and Q2 would give them enough detail to write the later format and exception requirements. If a reply could still say “yes” without explaining the workflow, sharpen the question.
You can edit that question directly in an HTML preparation copy in NOS. Replacing “Can you handle our archive?” with the specific unmatched-pair question gives the sourcing discussion a concrete gap to resolve. Keep actual supplier replies and the resulting scope decisions in the maintained sourcing record.