Building an RFQ that gets serious responses.
An RFQ gets serious responses when a supplier can price it, judge it and win it from the document alone. That means a defined scope, a written specification, a stated evaluation basis, a response window with a real closing date, and a short structured set of fields for the reply. Cut anything that does not help a supplier quote — incumbent pricing, credential requests unrelated to the work, patient-level detail — and settle every ambiguity before issue, because each open question costs a round of clarifications.
An RFQ that goes out vague gets one of two replies: silence, or a price attached to assumptions nobody agreed to. Both are reasonable answers to a document that leaves the supplier reconstructing the requirement. Serious bidders ration their estimating time, and they spend it on a document they can answer in one pass rather than one they have to decode first. The remedy is structural rather than persuasive: scope, specification, evaluation criteria, response window and a structured reply form, issued together, with nothing in the document that must be interpreted before it can be priced. There is a second cost to a vague document. When replies arrive shaped differently — one with freight included and one without, one quoting per pack and one per unit — the comparison you commissioned turns into a reconstruction exercise, and the cheapest bidder is often simply the bidder who excluded the most. A fixed reply form prevents that more effectively than any instruction to bidders. The inquiry guide covers the shorter version of this for a first contact.
The five parts that make an RFQ answerable
| Section | What it settles | Remove it and |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | What is being bought, and what is explicitly outside it. | The supplier prices work you meant to carry out yourself. |
| Specification | The standard the item must meet, plus the equivalence you will permit. A brief that names only a category invites a price for something adjacent. | Bidders guess at what is acceptable, or decline to bid at all. |
| Evaluation criteria | How replies will be compared — price, lead time, compliance, or a stated weighting. | Every bidder optimises for a different thing and no two offers line up. |
| Response window | A closing date and a clarification cut-off, so the requirement stops moving while estimates are being prepared. | The requirement drifts for one bidder longer than for another. |
| Reply form | The fields you want back, in the same shape from everyone. | Offers arrive shaped differently and the comparison becomes a reconstruction exercise. |
Remove any one of the five and the supplier has a question, and every question is a round trip your calendar pays for, which is why qualification questions are settled before issue rather than during the window.
Comparability is won or lost in the reply form
What to ask for in the reply
- Price basis — currency, whether the figure is per unit or per pack, and what is included and excluded (freight, clearance, insurance), so two offers can be compared without reconstruction.
- Lead time — from acceptance to delivery at the stated destination, with any dependency on availability declared as an assumption rather than buried inside the number.
- Compliance and origin — the standard the item meets and where it is made, since both affect whether the goods can be accepted at the destination.
- Validity — how long the offer stands and what would change it, so a decision taken inside the window is not renegotiated after it closes.
- Deviations — any point at which the offer does not meet the specification, declared as a deviation instead of substituted silently.
Say how you will decide before you ask for a price
Suppliers price to the criteria they can see. Ask for a number and nothing else, and the sensible bidder assumes the lowest number wins and quotes accordingly: thinner scope, aggressive assumptions, exclusions that surface later. Publish the evaluation basis and the answers change shape, because bidders compete on the dimensions you named and comparability stops being something you have to manufacture after the fact. It also protects the buyer. A stated basis is what lets you explain a decision to a losing bidder, to a finance function asking why, or in a public process where the reasoning has to exist on paper. The basis also has to be one you intend to honour: a weighting that rewards the lowest figure above everything else will be met by the lowest figure above everything else, and the requirements set out in the specification quietly leave the offer. See government contracting and the four-agency primer for medical exporters for that context, and traceability as a procurement requirement for the evidence bidders are frequently asked to supply.
The response window is part of the document
Run the window in this order
- Settle the requirement internally first — scope, specification and evaluation basis agreed and signed off — so the document cannot change once bidders are working on it.
- Issue everything at once: the RFQ, the specification, the reply form and every attachment it references, with one named contact for questions.
- Hold a clarification cut-off ahead of the closing date, answer every question received by it, and share the answers with all bidders so nobody competes on private information.
- Close on the date stated, including for late replies, unless there is a documented reason to reopen the window for everyone.
- Evaluate against the basis you published, then tell every bidder the outcome. A process that produces no feedback teaches bidders to ignore the next one.
What a serious reply actually looks like
A strong response arrives complete: every field in the reply form filled, deviations declared rather than buried, assumptions visible, and a validity period long enough to cover your decision. It invites fewer questions than a cheaper reply with holes in it, because comparison becomes arithmetic rather than archaeology. Keep the two documents distinct — an inquiry starts a conversation, while an RFQ asks for comparable offers against a written basis. El Rois responds to every qualified inquiry within one business day, and because this is a B2B channel with no public pricing and no checkout, every price is built to the requirement rather than read from a list. Nothing in a complete reply needs a second conversation before it can be compared, which is the whole objective: two offers should sit side by side and produce a decision without going back to either bidder for a clarification. Start with the quote form if the requirement is still forming, or send it as it stands.
Straight answers.
What does RFQ stand for, and when should I issue one?
Request for quotation. Issue it once the requirement is written down internally — scope, specification, quantity, destination and timing agreed — and you want comparable offers measured against a stated basis. Before that point a scoped inquiry does the same job with less ceremony; an RFQ sent early simply collects the questions you should have answered first.
How long should the response window be?
Long enough for a serious bidder to estimate the work, short enough that the requirement does not drift, and there is no universal figure because complexity and destination vary. What matters more than the length is that a closing date is stated, that a clarification cut-off sits ahead of it, and that both are honoured.
What should I never ask bidders for?
Patient records, prescriptions, insurance information or any clinical identifier — this is a B2B channel that does not process them and none of it affects a quote. Also avoid demands unrelated to the item, such as client lists or financial detail nobody will read, plus anything that forces bidders into a format you cannot compare.
How should the replies be compared?
Against the evaluation basis published in the document: price on a stated basis, lead time, compliance with the specification, and any weighting you declared. Comparing offers for which no basis was ever defined turns into judgement calls that are hard to defend to a losing bidder, to finance, or in a public process where the reasoning must exist on paper.
