RFP overview
- Organisation and brief context
- What we are buying, in one sentence
- Problem we are solving
- Vendors respond better to the problem than to a feature list.
RFPs produce incomparable responses because each vendor answers in their own structure and prices in their own format. Fixing the requirement format and the pricing table is what makes a side-by-side comparison possible at all.
Separate must-have from nice-to-have honestly. If everything is a must-have, vendors who could serve you well disqualify themselves and you are left with whoever ticks boxes most liberally. Be ruthless: a must-have is something you would walk away over.
Mandate the pricing format. Give a pricing table and require it be completed as-is. Vendors who price in their own format are not being unhelpful. Comparability is simply not their objective.
Publish the weights in the RFP. Telling vendors how you will score produces better-targeted responses and reduces the chance of a challenge. It also forces you to agree the weights before you see any proposal.
Here's a preview. Unlock the free download to get all 4 sections (3 more below).
More free templates IT teams use alongside this one.
Most software evaluations are a decision already made, dressed in a scoring matrix afterwards. The two things that prevent that are locking weights before you see proposals, and requiring evidence rather than impressions in each cell.
Licence price is the number vendors compete on and the smallest part of what you will spend. This worksheet forces in the costs that decide which option is actually cheaper: implementation, internal time, integration, and getting out again.
Sending every vendor a 200-question security questionnaire means nobody reads the answers. This one tiers vendors by what they can actually damage, and asks a proportionate set, with evidence required rather than self-attestation at the top tier.
Context and the problem being solved, scale, a requirements register split into must-have and nice-to-have, a fixed pricing format, published evaluation criteria and weights, a timeline with a questions window, and a single point of contact.
Usually yes, as a range. Withholding it produces proposals that are wildly out of scope in both directions and wastes everyone's time. A range lets vendors propose something appropriately sized rather than guessing.
Because vendors otherwise price in whatever structure presents them most favourably, making side-by-side comparison impossible. A fixed table with stated assumptions is the only reliable way to compare total cost across responses.