Request for information: decide who gets the RFQ
Clarify a supplier's planned process, unnamed production route and ambiguous quantity. Record who may receive an RFQ while keeping qualification open.
A request for information (RFI) gathers information about potential suppliers and what they can provide. For a manufacturing buyer, it can answer an early question: which suppliers have supplied enough relevant information to justify a detailed request for quotation?
A reply saying “yes” leaves room for several different answers. The process might be planned rather than operating. A distributor might be describing a manufacturer's capability without naming the plant. “600 pieces” might mean a monthly quantity or the entire proposed supply. Clarify those differences before choosing the next step.
Decide what the inquiry needs to establish
Use an RFI when you need to learn about possible supply routes or clarify capabilities before asking suppliers to price a defined requirement. SAP's sourcing lesson describes collecting supplier information and narrowing participants for later events. Novartis's supplier guidance likewise describes preliminary information for the next supplier list.
Write down the decision you intend to make. You might be choosing who to investigate further, who to invite to an RFQ, or which requirement needs changing. If the suppliers and their scope are already known, you may be ready for the RFQ itself.
Follow your purchasing policy. Some organizations require approved suppliers before requesting quotes; others allow quotation and technical qualification to proceed in parallel. Public procurement can use different rules: GSA's federal guidance describes an agency RFI as market research before a formal solicitation. The private-company invitation rule in the example below does not replace those rules.
Ask questions that expose the scope of the answer
Give suppliers the same controlled requirement and explain the response format, deadline and intended next step. Share drawings and sensitive information through your approved process. Ask only for information needed for this decision; a broad company questionnaire can bury the missing answer.
| RFI field | What a useful reply identifies |
|---|---|
| Part and process | Part family, material, drawing revision and required operations; exceptions stated explicitly |
| Production route | Manufacturer, actual manufacturing site and any external processing site |
| Current capability | What operates now, what is planned and what supporting information covers the proposed route |
| Quantity and period | Units, quantity for each stated period, conditions and whether availability is merely indicative |
| Evidence | Named attachment or record, scope, date, respondent and limits on what has been checked |
| Remaining work | Missing answers, proposed alternatives and the person responsible for clarification |
Ask about indicative costs when they help your inquiry. In this example, firm comparable prices and commercial terms are left for the RFQ. That is a choice for this inquiry, not a rule that every RFI must exclude prices.
Worked example: one supplier for the whole schedule
This is a hypothetical private manufacturer, not a customer result. It needs 600 conforming housings to drawing revision C in each of February, March and April 2027, at receiving site R1: 1,800 pieces in total.
The approved inquiry seeks one supplier for the complete schedule. Split sourcing and temporary bridge supply are outside its current scope. A partial offer could be useful under a separately approved plan.
This buyer allows an RFQ invitation after engineering has screened a plausible current production route and the supplier's stated quantities and periods. Technical qualification can remain open under a named plan. The screen does not verify physical capacity, reserve an allocation or authorize production.
Clarify the replies before choosing the next step
The buyer keeps the first replies and asks each supplier to resolve the specific uncertainty.
| Supplier | First reply | Clarified information | Decision for this inquiry |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | “Yes”; attaches a machine purchase plan | The required process is planned for March 2027. No current alternative route is offered | Do not advance the offered route for the February start; record the timing reason |
| B | Distributor says its group supplies the housings; sites unnamed | Names manufacturing site M1 and external finishing site F1; supplies dated revision-C route information and states 600 conforming pieces in each required month | Engineering permits an RFQ under this buyer's policy; quality qualification remains open |
| C | “600 pieces”; period unclear | Confirms 600 pieces total across February–April, without a monthly allocation | The offered quantity does not cover the complete schedule; retain it for any separately approved partial-supply assessment |
For A, a planned machine is evidence of a plan. Expected installation in March does not establish qualified output in March, and it does not cover the February start as offered. If A proposes a different route, assess that new proposal against the same requirement.
B's clarification names the previously unknown route and documents the proposal. The engineer's recorded review permits quotation work; the supplier's statements are still attributed to the supplier. Quality owns a separate qualification plan covering M1, F1 and the required sample and process checks. A January 8, 2027 review target is a planning milestone, not a completed approval. Exact delivery dates, manufacturing lead time and whether qualification can finish before production release still need checking against the February need.
C offers 600 against a required aggregate of 1,800, leaving 1,200 pieces uncovered by that offer. This is a comparison with the stated requirement, not independently measured capacity or a physical shortage. Do not infer an offer of 200 each month: the monthly allocation is unknown. An attractive price or high score on other criteria would not make the full schedule covered.
Keep the original answer and the decision it changed
Retain the requirement version, first reply, attachments and clarification with their sources and dates. Add the current finding, what the reviewer actually checked, the decision and its authority. A clarification may change the assessment. Keep the original answer and the basis for any change.
For B, the resulting record should say that the RFQ may proceed under the stated policy, with the named route and supplier-reported monthly quantities. It should also name quality's open work and the review target. It should not mark B production-approved or treat the stated quantity as reserved supply.
Send material requirement changes through the same controlled process for the affected suppliers. If the team decides to allow split sourcing, revise the scope and reassess C for that role. Do not quietly compare a full-schedule offer with a partial one as though they answer the same request.
Use the supplier-risk assessment for risk evidence and follow-up, and dual sourcing for the work needed to establish and maintain a usable alternative source. The RFI record supports those later decisions; it does not complete them.
Keep supplier questions attached to their evidence
In Cartograph, your team can open a supplier-evidence task for questionnaire answers or documents. Scout Agent follows up within your configured permissions, and replies and attachments stay on the task. Inbox & Tasks keeps its owner, due date, plan, linked records and communication history together. Your people evaluate the answers and authorize the next step; Cartograph does not vet suppliers.
Questions teams ask
What is the difference between an RFI and an RFQ?
An RFI gathers information needed to understand possible suppliers or solutions. An RFQ asks for a quotation against a sufficiently defined requirement. Use the step your decision needs and follow your purchasing policy; every purchase does not require both.
Does a complete RFI response qualify a supplier?
Completion shows that answers were supplied. Check their scope, source and remaining uncertainty. Technical qualification and production approval require the evidence and authority specified by your process.
Should a supplier with missing answers be rejected?
Record the answer as unknown and assign a specific clarification. A missing reply does not prove inability. Decide whether to keep the inquiry open under your timetable and criteria, without disguising the missing information as a verified failure.
Can a supplier offering less than the full quantity still be useful?
Yes, if an authorized split or alternative plan can use that offer. In this example the current inquiry requires one supplier for the whole schedule, so C's 600 total does not meet that scope. A different plan needs its own assessment and approval.