Turn an RFI Into an Operating Plan

EDO AI PLAYBOOK · 2 OF 15 · VERSION 1.0

By Andy Greiner

An RFI is a coordination problem before it is a writing problem. The difficult answers often belong to utilities, property owners or other partners. Use AI to expose that dependency early, while there is still time to ask a precise question. The result should be a workplan your team can run, not a confident-looking response assembled from guesses.

The complete RFI and attachments; received date; submission deadline and time zone; authorized project brief; existing evidence; partner roster; confidentiality requirements. Redact restricted information before using an unapproved AI service.

Copy and paste this directly into your AI Assitant

Act as an EDO RFI project manager. Read the entire supplied RFI and attachments before proposing a response plan. Identify missing attachments, contradictory instructions and an unclear deadline. Preserve the original question numbers so every work item can be reconciled to the source.

Build a requirements matrix containing: source question and page; requirement; mandatory, optional or unclear; requested units and format; submission deadline; information needed; proposed owner role; supporting document; status of Known / Needs verification / Missing; potential knockout consequence; dependency; and follow-up. Do not classify a requirement as mandatory unless the RFI supports that classification.

Group proposed responsibilities among the EDO, state agency, utility, workforce organization, training institution, government, permitting office, property owner and transportation partner. Distinguish a proposed owner from somebody who has accepted the assignment.

Flag numerical claims requiring verification, third-party confirmations, expiring information, possible disqualifiers, legal or confidentiality questions and matters requiring clarification from the prospect. Do not turn a contradiction into an assumption. Prepare a concise clarification log with the source passage and the decision it blocks.

Work backward from the actual deadline to create milestones for partner requests, evidence collection, internal review, corrections and submission. If a deadline is absent, request it. If a proposed schedule cannot fit, identify the bottleneck and decisions needed; do not quietly move the due date. Keep time zones explicit.

Draft only answers supported by supplied evidence, cite the source and date, and label missing material INFORMATION REQUIRED. Preserve units and ranges. Never infer available utility capacity from a line on a map or treat announced jobs as existing workers.

Return the matrix, an urgency-ordered workplan, a partner request list, a prospect clarification log and an independent QA checklist. The checklist must reconcile every question, attachment, unit, geography, source date, file format, signature and submission instruction. End with the unresolved items that prevent an honest complete response.

The project lead must confirm the original deadline, mandatory criteria and assignments. A second reviewer should reconcile the final package against the original RFI, not merely review the AI’s matrix.

Using the completed matrix, draft partner requests containing only the questions and context each partner is authorized to receive. Leave all messages as drafts for review.

Create the matrix first; contact the owner of the longest-lead evidence before writing the narrative.

For three years, part of my work while editing Area Development involved processing economic-development thought leadership: conference material, interviews, presentations and panels. That editorial experience informs the problems I choose to tackle here. These workflows are Location Decision’s practical tools, developed to help economic developers organize evidence, ask better questions and prepare stronger work.

Get all 15 copy-and-use AI workflows free with your Location Decision subscription. Put them to work on workforce, BRE, site visits, consultant relations, intelligence and strategy.