Choosing a solicitation type
RFP vs RFQ vs RFI:
which one should you send?
The short version: if you only need prices for work you have already specified, send an RFQ. If vendors could approach the job differently and that difference matters, send an RFP. If you cannot write the scope yet, send an RFI first.
Most situations are not that clean, which is the rest of this page. Three questions below will land you on the right one, and after that you will find the cases people actually get stuck on — mixed scopes, multiple sites, testing the market, and whether you are allowed to skip the cheapest bid.
Answer three questions →What each one actually asks a vendor to do
The names are bureaucratic. The distinction is not: each one asks for a different thing, and asking for the wrong thing is what produces responses you cannot use.
“We don't know this market yet. What do you offer, and roughly what does it cost?”
Research, not buying. No firm prices, no commitment on either side. Its only job is to teach you enough to write a scope.
Send it when
You cannot yet describe what you want in writing.
“Here is exactly what we need. What's your price?”
Assumes every qualified vendor delivers the same result, so the only open variable is cost. Vendors fill in a price column.
Send it when
The scope is fixed and you would genuinely take the cheapest qualified bid.
“Here is our project. Show us how you would do it, and what it would cost.”
Evaluates the whole vendor — approach, people, track record, price — against criteria you set and weight in advance.
Send it when
Two vendors could both be “qualified” and still give you very different outcomes.
Three questions
No email required. Nothing is sent anywhere.
1. Could you hand a vendor a written description of the work today?
Not a polished document — just whether you know what you're asking for.
2. If you get good responses, will you award the work?
Be honest here — it changes the answer more than anything else on this page.
3. Could two qualified vendors do this differently in ways that change the result?
Crew size, materials, sequencing, who is actually assigned, how problems get handled.
The situations that don't fit the flowchart
These are the ones where the three-sentence rule gives you the wrong answer.
A cleaning contract across 12 separate locations
Say you need janitorial services for 12 classroom sites. This looks like an RFQ — cleaning is cleaning, and you know the square footage. It usually isn't. The moment the work is spread across sites, the thing that varies is not the hourly rate, it's whether a vendor can actually staff every location on the same schedule, what happens when someone calls out at the furthest site, and whether sites differ in ways your scope hasn't captured (a site with a commercial kitchen, a site with restricted access hours, a site two hours from the others).
A single blended price per square foot hides all of that, and you find out which vendor was guessing in month three.
Use an RFP, with per-site line-item pricing rather than one blended number. Ask how each location is staffed and supervised, and what the coverage plan is for absences. Keep the pricing table RFQ-strict so the numbers stay comparable; let the approach section carry the part that actually differentiates vendors. If any site has regulatory requirements — childcare, food service, healthcare — make the relevant certification a pass/fail qualification, not a scored criterion.
Rebidding a contract whose scope hasn't changed
Three years on the same landscaping contract, same property, same expectations. You don't need anyone to propose an approach — you need to know whether you're overpaying.
An RFQ is right here, and it's the cleanest case for one. Take the existing scope of work, correct the parts that drifted from reality, and ask for pricing against it. One caution: include your incumbent. Not as a courtesy — a renewal quote priced against the same document is the only way to know whether the market number is actually better than what you have.
Selecting broker representation, or any service where you're buying judgment
Brokers, attorneys, engineers, auditors. The fee structure is often close to identical across firms — which is exactly why price can't decide it. What you're actually buying is which individual gets assigned to you and what they've handled before.
Use an RFP, and make it ask the questions an RFQ structurally cannot: who specifically does this work, not just who signs the pitch; comparable engagements; how the fee is structured, including splits and anything that creates an incentive misaligned with yours; and any conflicts. On commission-based work, ask what happens if the engagement ends early.
You want to know what the market charges, but you might stay put
Common and completely legitimate — you suspect you're overpaying, but switching is disruptive and you're not committed. The instinct is to send an RFQ and see what comes back. Don't.
An RFQ asks for firm, usually time-bound quotes. Collecting those with no intent to award is the fastest way to lose the vendors you'll want next year, and vendors in a local market talk to each other.
Two honest routes. Send an RFI asking for pricing structure and ranges rather than firm quotes — that's explicitly what the document is for. Or run a real RFP and reserve the right not to award, in writing. Either way, say plainly that no award is guaranteed. You'll get fewer responses and they'll be worth more, and you keep the relationships intact.
Part of the job is a commodity and part of it isn't
A roof replacement where the membrane is specified but the deck repairs are unknown until tear-off. A move where the boxes are a commodity but the IT relocation isn't.
One RFP, with the pricing section built like an RFQ. Fixed line items for what you've specified, unit rates for what you can't quantify yet (per sheet of decking, per hour for unforeseen work), and a written approach only for the genuinely variable part. This is the most common real-world shape, and it's why “RFP or RFQ” is usually a false choice — the RFQ is a section, not a separate document.
The questions people actually ask
Short answers to the things that come up once you've picked one.
Yes, and for most mixed projects it is the right answer. Put the defined, commodity portion in a line-item pricing table the way an RFQ would, and ask for a written approach only on the parts where vendors would genuinely differ. You are not running two solicitations — you are running one RFP whose pricing section is structured like an RFQ.
What does not work is sending an RFQ and then an RFP for the same scope. Vendors price the first one, then have to redo the work, and the strongest ones stop responding.
Only when you genuinely do not know the market. The order is RFI → RFQ or RFP, and the RFI exists to teach you enough to write the scope.
If you can already write the scope, skip it. Sending one anyway adds weeks and asks vendors to do the same work twice. The sequence is not a required procurement ritual — it is a tool for one specific problem: you cannot specify what you want yet.
Not unless something outside the solicitation obligates you. An RFP exists precisely so price is one weighted factor among several, which is why a scored RFP lets you defensibly pick a vendor who is not cheapest.
An RFQ is closer to the opposite. It assumes every qualified bidder delivers the same result, so once qualification is met the decision is price, and choosing a higher bid is hard to justify.
If your bylaws, state or local procurement rules, or a grant condition require lowest qualified bid, that requirement comes from the rule, not from the document type. Check the rule before you choose the instrument — it may decide it for you.
They run in opposite directions. An RFI is you asking the market questions before you have a scope. Bidder inquiries — sometimes called the question period or clarification window — are vendors asking you questions about a solicitation you have already issued.
Bidder inquiries sit inside a live RFP or RFQ, usually with a published deadline, and answers are normally circulated to every bidder at once so nobody gets private information. If several vendors ask the same question, that is a scope problem to fix in an addendum — not a reason to start over with an RFI.
Then do not send an RFQ. An RFQ asks for firm, usually time-bound quotes, and collecting those with no intention of awarding is the fastest way to lose the vendors you will need next year.
Two honest options. Send an RFI asking for pricing structure and ranges rather than firm quotes — that is explicitly what the document is for. Or run a real RFP that reserves the right not to award, and say so in the document.
Either way, state plainly that no award is guaranteed. Vendors price risk, and the ones who find out afterwards that they were benchmarking for free will not bid again.
An RFI has no required format, so the lightest version is a short email to a handful of vendors with four or five specific questions and a reply-by date. That is still an RFI, just an informal one.
If you only need to know roughly what something costs, calling three vendors is legitimate research and faster than any document.
The reason to formalise it is comparability and a record. If you need answers side by side, or need to show a board how you reached a shortlist, write the questions down and send the same ones to everyone.
Plan backward from the date you need a signed contract, and treat the vendor response window as the part you cannot compress.
An RFQ against a defined scope is shortest — vendors are filling in a price column. An RFP takes longer because vendors are writing, and a short window mostly filters out the busy, established firms rather than the weak ones. Put an RFI in front and you add its own full cycle before the real solicitation starts.
The other half of the timeline is yours: your own evaluation, and the gap until the meeting where the decision actually gets approved. For boards and committees that meeting date is usually the real constraint, so fix it first and work backward.
An RFP. For brokers, attorneys, engineers and auditors you are buying judgment and the specific people assigned to you, and those vary enormously between firms charging similar rates. An RFQ has nowhere to put that information.
Ask who specifically will handle the work rather than who signs the pitch, for comparable engagements, how the fee is structured including splits and incentives, and about conflicts. On commission-based representation the headline rate is often similar across firms — which is exactly why the qualitative side has to carry the decision.
Issuing one does not create a contract. Nothing binds either side until a contract is signed.
Two caveats. A vendor’s submitted pricing may be held open for a stated period. And if you tell bidders you will evaluate against specific criteria, departing from them invites a protest or a dispute — particularly for public and grant-funded bodies, which are often also subject to statutory rules on notice, timelines and award. Those obligations come from the rules, not from the document.
Side by side
For when you need to show someone else why you picked one.
| RFI | RFQ | RFP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| You are asking for | Information and capability | A price | An approach, and a price |
| Scope must be defined | No — that's the point | Yes, precisely | Yes, but outcomes can be open |
| Decided on | Nothing — it informs | Price, once qualified | Weighted criteria you set |
| Can you skip the cheapest | n/a | Hard to justify | Yes, that's the design |
| Work for the vendor | Low | Low | High — respect it |
| Defensible to a board | As research only | Yes, if price is the policy | Yes — scored and documented |
| Firm pricing | No | Yes, usually time-bound | Yes |
One row does most of the work: can you skip the cheapest bid? If the answer needs to be yes, you need an RFP, regardless of how well-defined the scope is.
Decided it's an RFP?
Bid Grid builds the document — guided scope, weighted evaluation criteria, line-item pricing tables — then gives vendors a link to submit against it with no account to create.
Create and preview one free. A full RFP with your organization's branding is $39, one time, per project. No subscription.
Needed an RFQ instead? The same builder works — keep the pricing table, drop the approach sections.