An RFP evaluation template is a weighted scorecard for scoring, ranking and comparing vendor proposals on the same criteria. Each evaluator rates every response on a fixed scale, so the shortlist rests on evidence instead of whoever pitched best.
It is the sheet a buying team uses to turn a pile of vendor proposals into one ranked list. Criteria and their weights are fixed before any proposal is opened, and each response is then marked against the same 0-5 scale.
Procurement usually builds the RFP scoring template while the RFP itself is drafted, so the evaluation criteria published to vendors match the ones the panel uses. IT, finance, security and the business owner each score their own area.
The result is a defensible decision. If a losing vendor or an auditor asks why a supplier was chosen, the weights, scores and comments are all on file.
Features, architecture and integrations against your stated requirements, scored 0-5.
Total cost of ownership, licensing model and every one-off or recurring fee.
Similar customers served, delivery track record and what references say.
Onboarding plan, SLAs, training and the team assigned to your account.
A gate, not a weight: a vendor that cannot meet requirements such as SOC 2, GDPR or HIPAA is out.
Exceptional, strong, acceptable, marginal, deficient and non-responsive, defined so scorers agree.
Ready to use in Excel and Google Sheets. Fill it in, save it, reuse it.
Agree the criteria, weights summing to 100% and any pass or fail gates before the RFP is issued.
Drop late or incomplete proposals and any vendor that fails the security gate.
Each evaluator scores every proposal on the 0-5 rubric, alone, with a comment for each score.
Compare scores, discuss any gap of two points or more and agree a final score per criterion.
Rank by weighted score, run demos or reference calls with the top two and confirm the winner.
Use four weighted criteria, one pass or fail gate and a 0-5 scale: Technical 35%, Commercial 30%, Experience 20%, Support 15%, Security gate.
Weights sit in one column and must add up to 100%, or the totals mean nothing. Security sits below the weighted rows because no score in another area can make up for a vendor that fails it. Adjust the weights within the ranges shown to suit the purchase.
| Criterion | Weight | Brightline Software | Kestrel Data | Orbit Analytics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | 35% | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Commercial and pricing | 30% | 4 | 2 | 5 |
| Experience and references | 20% | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Support and implementation | 15% | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Security and compliance | Gate | Pass | Pass | Fail |
| Weighted score (out of 100) | 100% | 76.0 | 72.0 | 69.0 |
Illustrative scores for three fictional vendors. Orbit Analytics is excluded on security despite its price score.
Print this beside the matrix so every evaluator uses the same definitions.
| Score | Rating | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Exceptional | Exceeds the requirement, with evidence such as a demo or reference |
| 4 | Strong | Fully meets the requirement with no concerns |
| 3 | Acceptable | Meets the requirement with minor gaps or workarounds |
| 2 | Marginal | Partly meets it; significant gaps or vague answers |
| 1 | Deficient | Does not meet the requirement |
| 0 | Non-responsive | No answer, or the answer ignores the question |
Criteria in rows 2 to 5, security gate in row 6, vendors in columns C to E.
| Col | Header | Entry or formula | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Criterion | Text | One criterion per row |
| B2:B5 | Weight | 35%, 30%, 20%, 15% | Entered as percentages |
| C2:E5 | Vendor scores | 0-5 from the rubric | Use Data Validation to allow whole numbers 0 to 5 only |
| C6:E6 | Security gate | Drop-down: Pass, Fail | Checked before scoring starts |
| B7 | Weight check | =SUM(B2:B5) | Must show 100% |
| C8 | Weighted score | =IF(C6='Pass', | Score out of 100, copy across to E8 |
| C9 | Rank | =IF(ISNUMBER(C8), | 1 is the best-scoring eligible vendor |
Splitting each criterion into three or four sub-questions makes scores more consistent, because evaluators judge specific answers rather than an overall impression. The evidence column matters most: a score with no page reference is hard to defend in the consensus meeting.
| Criterion | Sub-question | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | Meets the must-have requirements list | 4 | Compliance matrix, p. 6 |
| Technical fit | Native integration with our ERP and SSO | 5 | Integration section, p. 11 |
| Technical fit | Can handle our volume growth over three years | 3 | Architecture note, p. 14 |
| Commercial and pricing | Three-year total cost of ownership | 4 | Pricing schedule, p. 22 |
| Commercial and pricing | Renewal price cap stated | 4 | Commercial terms, p. 24 |
| Support and implementation | Named implementation lead and plan | 4 | Delivery plan, p. 18 |
Illustrative scorecard: one evaluator scoring Brightline Software.
| Scorecard cell | Formula |
|---|---|
| Technical fit score | =AVERAGEIF(A:A, |
| Commercial score | =AVERAGEIF(A:A, |
| Unscored sub-questions | =COUNTBLANK(C2:C30) |
Averages hide disagreement, so the spread column is the useful one. A 2 and a 5 average to 3.5, but they usually mean one evaluator found something the other missed. Settle the flagged rows in discussion and record the agreed score in the matrix.
| Criterion | IT lead | Finance | Business owner | Average | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Commercial and pricing | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4.0 | 2 |
| Experience and references | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Support and implementation | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4.0 | 2 |
Illustrative scores for Brightline Software. The commercial and support rows go to discussion, and both were agreed at 4.
| Column | Formula |
|---|---|
| Average (E2) | =ROUND(AVERAGE(B2:D2), |
| Spread (F2) | =MAX(B2:D2)-MIN(B2:D2) |
| Discuss flag (G2) | =IF(F2>=2, |
In the example, finance scored commercial terms a 5 because the year-one price was lowest, while the IT lead scored it a 3 because a data migration fee sat in an appendix. Once the fee was added to the three-year cost, the panel agreed a 4.
Publish the criteria and weights in the RFP so vendors know what to focus on. Never change the weights after proposals arrive, because that is the easiest way to make a fair process look rigged. Agree any change in writing before the submission deadline.
| Criterion | What to score | Weight range |
|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | Required features, architecture, integrations, scalability, roadmap | 30-40% |
| Commercial and pricing | Total cost of ownership, licensing model, implementation and support fees, renewal caps | 25-35% |
| Experience and references | Similar customers, delivery history, reference feedback, financial stability | 15-20% |
| Support and implementation | Onboarding plan, SLAs, training, account team | 10-15% |
| Security and compliance | Certifications such as SOC 2, data protection terms, regulatory needs | Pass or fail |
| Purchase type | Technical | Commercial | Experience | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core business platform | 40% | 25% | 20% | 15% |
| Standard SaaS tool | 35% | 30% | 20% | 15% |
| Price-led renewal or commodity | 30% | 35% | 20% | 15% |
Example weightings within the usual ranges. Every row sums to 100%.
This is the matrix from Part 1 with the arithmetic shown. Each cell is weight times score, so the maximum for a criterion is its weight times 5. Dividing the total by 5 gives a score out of 100.
| Criterion | Weight | Brightline | Kestrel | Orbit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | 35 | 35 x 4 = 140 | 35 x 5 = 175 | 35 x 3 = 105 |
| Commercial and pricing | 30 | 30 x 4 = 120 | 30 x 2 = 60 | 30 x 5 = 150 |
| Experience and references | 20 | 20 x 3 = 60 | 20 x 4 = 80 | 20 x 3 = 60 |
| Support and implementation | 15 | 15 x 4 = 60 | 15 x 3 = 45 | 15 x 2 = 30 |
| Points out of 500 | 100 | 380 | 360 | 345 |
Illustrative scoring for a customer data platform purchase by Lumen Retail.
Kestrel had the best technology but scored 2 on price, which cost it 60 points against Brightline.
Every RFP starts as a request. Spendflo handles software intake and approvals before you go to market.
See how it worksCriteria and weights are agreed and dated before the RFP is issued.
Independent scoring first stops the loudest voice setting every number.
Each score cites the proposal section it is based on.
Pass or fail requirements are checked separately and never averaged away.
Compare three-year cost, including set-up, licences, support and exit fees.
Vendors write better answers when they know what will be scored.
Written definitions stop one evaluator's 3 being another's 4.
Include IT, finance, security and the business owner, each scoring their own area.
Put every proposal's costs on the same three-year basis before scoring commercial terms.
Save scorecards, comments and the consensus notes with the contract file.
A low security score averaged into a high total can hide a deal-breaker.
Twenty weighted criteria dilute the four that decide the outcome.
Score what the proposal commits to, not how polished the pitch was.
If scores are close, run reference calls before defaulting to the cheapest.
Enter the criteria from your RFP, set weights summing to 100% and check cell B7 shows 100%.
Mark late or incomplete proposals and run the security gate before anyone scores.
Give each evaluator a scorecard copy and three working days to score their criteria with evidence.
Discuss flagged rows, enter the agreed scores in the matrix and save the ranked result with the notes.
Lumen Retail's IT lead scored Kestrel Data a 5 on support; the business owner scored it a 2. The IT lead had read the SLA schedule, which promised a four-hour response, while the business owner had seen that onboarding was outsourced to a partner. The panel agreed a 3 and added a reference call. Illustrative scenario.
Every part on this page, in Excel and Google Sheets, with the examples filled in.
Weight technical fit highest and add integration and data export sub-questions. Score price on three-year total cost.
Shift weight to experience and the named team, and ask for CVs of the people who will do the work.
Add more pass or fail gates and keep full scoring records, as decisions are more likely to be reviewed.
Best when one person consolidates scores.
Best for panels scoring at the same time.
Five criteria and three vendors, ready to fill.
Check vendor quotes against software pricing benchmarks from $3.7B in software spend processed.
See pricing benchmarksA good RFP evaluation template fixes the criteria first, scores every proposal on the same scale and records why the winner won. Price and terms still need checking against the market before you sign.
Quick answers to what people ask most about the rfp evaluation template.
Agree weighted criteria and a pass or fail security gate before issuing it, then have each evaluator score every proposal on a 0-5 scale. Compare scores, discuss large gaps and rank vendors by weighted total. Download the template above to run the whole process in one workbook.
Define the need, write the RFP, issue it to vendors, answer their questions, receive proposals, evaluate and shortlist, then negotiate and award the contract. The download on this page covers the evaluation step in detail.
Most RFPs score technical fit, commercial terms and pricing, experience and references, and support and implementation, with security and compliance as a pass or fail gate. Typical weights are 30-40%, 25-35%, 15-20% and 10-15%, and the download has them pre-loaded.
Score it against the criteria you published, using a defined rubric, and note the page that supports each score. Check pricing on a total-cost basis and verify claims with references. Download the scorecard tab to give every evaluator the same structure.
You can download it free from this page in Excel or Google Sheets. It includes the weighted matrix, the 0-5 rubric, an evaluator scorecard, a consensus tab and a worked three-vendor example.
Sourcing and RFx
Purchase orders
Contracts
Vendor management
Budgets and business cases
Procurement
Accounts payable
Purchasing
Software buying
Supply chain
Spendflo does not run RFP events. It handles intake and approvals before you go to market, pricing benchmarks while you compare, and the contract once you sign.
Enter your work email and we'll unlock every format.
Didn't start, or need another format? Pick one below.
Google Sheets: upload the file to Google Drive, then open it with Google Sheets.
