An RFP clarification question asks the buyer to resolve an ambiguity that affects your response. It should identify the source, state what is unclear and ask for a decision the buyer can answer. Below are concrete supplier questions, followed by a log you can copy.
Use the issued contact channel and deadline. Check published answers and amendments before asking; the answer may already exist. The examples apply equally to a tender response, but the buyer’s process governs how questions are submitted and shared.
Examples of supplier clarification questions
Fictional worked example. Harbor Housing, Orion IT and all people, projects and figures below are invented. The September 2026 dates are illustrative historical exercise dates, not a live tender.
Public source excerpts
HH-RFP-01 v1, 2 September 2026: §1.1 describes 120 users and an expected 300 new tickets per month, while Appendix A records 280 in a prior month. Section 1.2 requires ticket ownership to be preserved without stating the open-ticket count. Section 2.1 requires a 30-calendar-day transition from the agreed contract start. Section 2.2 says access and inventory are intended by day 5, pending confirmation; §2.3 says acceptance is “to the buyer’s satisfaction.” Section 5.2 requires portal questions by 10 September at 12:00 UTC and submission by 18 September at 12:00 UTC.
A01 v1, 8 September: questions now close on 14 September at 12:00 UTC. Submission remains 18 September at 12:00 UTC; acknowledge A01 in the cover.
QA01 v1, 11 September: transfer 120 open tickets, plan for 300 new tickets per month, and test ten sample tickets for owner/routing with buyer service-lead signoff before each handover. Day-5 access is still a target to confirm at kickoff. The 30-day objective remains unchanged.
Scope: which tickets must transfer?
Weak: “Can you explain the scope?”
HH-RFP-01 §1.2 requires continuity of ticket ownership. Please confirm whether all open tickets must transfer to the receiving service and provide the planning count of open tickets.
Decision affected: reconciliation workload, staffing and transition scope. QA01 answers: all 120 open tickets transfer. Do not confuse this existing stock with 300 new tickets per month.
Acceptance: what establishes readiness?
Weak: “Will you accept our normal signoff process?”
Section 2.3 refers to acceptance “to the buyer’s satisfaction.” Please confirm the checks and buyer approval role required before each handover can proceed.
Decision affected: test plan and stage gates. QA01 defines ten sample-ticket checks and buyer service-lead signoff. This seeks a definition, not permission to waive acceptance.
Access: is the schedule input confirmed?
Weak: “You’ll give us access on time, right?”
Section 2.2 targets access and an asset inventory by day 5. Please confirm whether that date is committed and the process for agreeing schedule impacts if either input is delayed.
Decision affected: feasibility of the 30-day plan and price assumptions. QA01 does not confirm access; it remains a target to confirm at kickoff. Keep the dependency open rather than converting the target into a commitment.
Volumes: distinguish planning demand from historical counts
Weak: “Your numbers don’t match. Which is right?”
Section 1.1 gives an expected 300 new tickets per month; Appendix A records 280 in a prior month. Please confirm the monthly planning volume to use for this response.
Decision affected: future routing and workload assumptions. QA01 confirms 300 as the planning volume. The historical 280 is not necessarily an error; ask which basis controls.
Dates: check the amendment before submitting a question
Weak: “Is the deadline the 10th or 14th?”
Better action: A01 expressly replaces the question deadline with 14 September, 12:00 UTC. Record the amendment and update the calendar; do not send a question that the issued amendment already answers. If a portal still displayed 10 September, a neutral question would identify that display and A01 and ask the buyer to confirm the controlling question deadline. No conflicting portal display is supplied in this exercise.
Reusable clarification-question log
| Field | Your entry |
|---|---|
| ID / source | [Question ID, document version and section] |
| Question / decision affected | [Neutral wording and what depends on the answer] |
| Owner / process | [Responsible person and permitted channel] |
| Deadline / submission | [Date, time, zone; submission date and receipt if sent] |
| Answer / authority | [Issued answer or amendment reference; unanswered if none] |
| Affected response | [Section, price, schedule or matrix rows] |
| Status / recheck | [Draft / submitted / answered / applied / open, and verification] |
Filled log: Q01 — acceptance
| Field | Recorded example |
|---|---|
| Source / question | v1 §2.3: confirm checks and approval role before handover. |
| Owner / timing | Maya; buyer portal; submitted 9 September. Revised deadline 14 September, 12:00 UTC. |
| Answer | QA01, 11 September: ten sample tickets with owners/routing; buyer service lead signs off. |
| Affected response | Technical §2 acceptance paragraph and §3 schedule; transition review record. |
| Status / recheck | Applied 12 September: Lee finds the ten-ticket test and signoff in both sections. Question closed; future delivery checks are still to be performed. |
Filled log: Q02 — access remains open
| Field | Recorded example |
|---|---|
| Source / question | v1 §2.2: confirm committed day-5 access and delayed-input process. |
| Owner / timing | Maya; buyer portal; submitted 9 September; question deadline 14 September, 12:00 UTC. |
| Answer | QA01 leaves date as a target to confirm at kickoff. |
| Affected response | Technical §6 schedule dependency and separate price assumptions. |
| Status / next action | Open. Confirm at kickoff; agree any impact before changing a handover. No assumed buyer approval. |
Apply an answer or amendment to the proposal
Before QA01: “We will complete testing before handover.” After: “Before each handover, we will test ten sample tickets and record their owners and routing results. The buyer service lead will approve the results before we proceed.” The reviewer checks both the approach and schedule; simply copying the answer into the log is insufficient.
For A01, change the question deadline and cover acknowledgement, then confirm that the submission date remains 18 September. Keep v1 and A01 references together so another team member can follow the change. See the compliance matrix amendment example and the response review and submission playbook.
Clarification or request to change the terms?
“Which tests establish acceptance?” clarifies an undefined instruction. “Will you remove the acceptance requirement?” asks to change it. If you need a change, describe it accurately and use the permitted process; do not disguise it as a clarification. The buyer may decline it.
Do not bypass the designated portal, seek confidential competitor information or treat silence as acceptance. Your team submits the question and follows the issued answer-sharing process. AI assistance with your supplied material does not contact the buyer or monitor amendments for you.
Clarification-question FAQs
Should I ask every possible question?
Prioritize ambiguities that affect eligibility, commitments, scope, price or delivery. First read the complete pack and existing answers.
What if a question is unanswered?
Keep its effect visible. Follow the buyer’s rules on assumptions and decide whether you can responsibly respond; an open issue is not permission to alter a mandatory requirement.
Can the public log replace the buyer’s form?
No. It is an internal tracking structure. Submit through the required form/channel.
Find questions to clarify in your RFP
Use this public example as a starting point. DeepRFP can help you apply the task to your own opportunity and supplied documents.
- Create an account with the seven-day free trial.
- Upload the RFP, its amendments and relevant company information and approved project evidence.
- Request the task in your workspace chat or run the relevant workflow, then check the draft against your sources.
A short instruction to adapt:
Identify ambiguities in the supplied RFP, amendments and answers. For each proposed clarification, cite the source, write a neutral question and state the response decision affected. Do not repeat answered questions or assume missing approvals.
Start your 7-day free trial — no credit card required.
