Market research before a solicitation: RFIs, demos, and fair dealing

Reference article · 5 min read

Procurement and IT staff are told two things that seem to conflict. The first is that talking to vendors before a solicitation is improper. The second is that a solicitation written without understanding the market produces requirements no product meets, budgets that do not survive the first bid opening, and awards that draw protests. Both are partly right. The contact restriction that matters applies to a narrow window and a narrow set of conduct. Market research itself is normal, expected, and often required before a formal solicitation is released.

The working distinction is between learning and dealing. Learning what products exist, what they do, how they are licensed, and what comparable agencies paid is legitimate staff work, better done in the open than through rumor and sales calls. Dealing means giving one firm information others do not have, letting a vendor write requirements only it can meet, or signaling a decision before competition.

What the pre-solicitation restriction actually covers

Most agency rules restrict contact during the solicitation period, the window between release of the RFP or IFB and award. In that window communication runs through one designated procurement contact, questions are answered by written addendum sent to every interested party, and evaluators avoid side conversations. Separate ethics rules on gifts, meals, travel, and employment discussions apply at all times.

Market research conducted before a project reaches solicitation is generally not restricted. Requirements differ by jurisdiction and are revised over time, so confirm the rule with your purchasing office and counsel rather than office folklore.

Ways to learn the market

Request for information. An RFI is not a solicitation and no award can result from it. It describes the problem and asks how vendors would approach it, how their products are licensed, and what a project of this size typically costs. Advertise it the way you advertise a solicitation.
Vendor demonstrations. Offer the same agenda, time allotment, and scenarios to each firm. Use scenarios drawn from your own work rather than the vendor's scripted demonstration, and put the staff who will use the system in the room.
Published pricing on existing contracts. Cooperative agreements, state term schedules, and other agencies' awarded contracts often publish price sheets and full contract documents, useful both for budgeting and for seeing how peers scoped similar work.
Reference calls with peer agencies. Agencies of similar size that already run the product will usually speak candidly about implementation effort, change orders, and support responsiveness. These are not vendor contacts.
An independent cost estimate. Build your own estimate of licensing, implementation, interfaces, data migration, training, and recurring cost across the full term before you see a price from any vendor.

Rules that keep this stage from tainting the competition

Equal access to information. Anything shared with one vendor should be available to all. Post RFI questions and answers publicly, keep briefing materials consistent, and do not preview draft requirements privately.
No shaping of specifications around one product. Write requirements as outcomes, functions, data, and interfaces rather than one product's feature names or module structure. If only a single product can meet a requirement, either justify why it is essential to the program or rewrite it. Unduly restrictive specifications are a common protest ground and a common audit finding when federal funds are involved.
No drafting by vendors. Do not adopt a vendor's scope of work or requirements matrix as the basis for a solicitation. Many jurisdictions treat a firm that helped write the requirements as holding an unfair advantage or an organizational conflict of interest, and may bar it from competing.
A documented record of contact. Log every meeting, demonstration, call, and email: date, firm, attendees, topics covered, materials received. The log turns a defensible process into a provable one.
A gap between research and release. Close market research, finalize requirements internally, then release. Publishing the date after which the agency will take no further vendor meetings until award makes the boundary visible and easy to enforce.

What to ask while the market is still open to you

How is the product licensed, and what drives cost up over a term: users, records, transactions, storage, modules?
What is included in implementation, and what is typically billed later as a change order?
Which interfaces to systems like ours already exist, and which would be new development?
What must the agency supply: data cleanup, subject matter expert time, testing, network or device changes?
Who owns the data, in what format is it exported, and what happens to it at the end of the term?
What hosting model is offered, which compliance regimes does it operate under, and which contract vehicles carry it?

On reference calls, ask what surprised them, what took longer than planned, and how many staff it takes to run the system now.

How to run the stage

Write the problem statement and the business outcome first, before any vendor conversation.
Inventory what you already hold: current contracts, cooperative vehicles, overlapping systems.
Choose a format. An unfamiliar market calls for a published RFI; a familiar one may need only demonstrations and peer calls.
State the ground rules in writing: single point of contact, equal treatment, contact log.
Build the independent estimate and reconcile it with the budget before drafting requirements.
Close the window, finalize requirements, write a short memo describing how research informed them, and release.

When a losing bidder later asks why a requirement exists, that memo lets the agency point to research rather than to a conversation.

HQT works with state and local agencies on technology assessments, requirements definition, and independent cost estimating that support this stage of a procurement.

Frequently asked questions

Can government buyers talk to vendors before an RFP is issued?

In most jurisdictions yes, before the solicitation is released. The restriction that matters usually applies during the solicitation period, between release and award, when all communication must run through the designated procurement contact. Ethics rules on gifts, meals, and employment discussions apply at all times. Confirm your own agency's purchasing policy and state procurement code with your purchasing office and counsel, since the rules vary and are revised.

What is the difference between an RFI and an RFP?

An RFI is a market research tool: it gathers information about what products exist, how they work, and what they generally cost, and no contract can be awarded from it. An RFP is a solicitation that leads to evaluation and award. Responding to an RFI does not create any advantage or obligation, and an agency should say so plainly in the document.

Can a vendor that helped write our requirements bid on the contract?

Often not, or not without careful review. Many jurisdictions treat a firm that drafted specifications or a scope of work as holding an unfair competitive advantage or an organizational conflict of interest, and may exclude it from the resulting competition. The safer practice is to write requirements with agency staff, using market research as input rather than adopting vendor-supplied language. Ask counsel before relying on any vendor-drafted material.

How do we document vendor contacts during market research?

Keep a single log covering every meeting, demonstration, call, and email, with the date, firm, attendees, topics discussed, and any materials received. Post questions and answers from an RFI publicly so no firm holds information the others lack. The log is what allows the agency to show later that access was equal, and it is the first thing requested if an award is challenged.

How long should we wait between market research and releasing the solicitation?

There is no universal waiting period, and most agencies set their own practice rather than following a statute. What matters is that requirements are finalized internally after research closes, and that the agency stops taking vendor meetings from a stated date until award. Publishing that cutoff date makes the boundary visible to staff and vendors alike.