# RFP Evaluation and Scoring Matrix Template

> Free template from RFP Software Tools (https://rfp-software-tools.com/templates/rfp-evaluation-scoring-template). No sign-up. The Excel version has dropdowns and formulas; this Markdown copy shows the same structure.

## How to use it

| Area | What it is for | How to fill it |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Pass/fail gates | Screens out proposals that miss mandatory requirements before anyone spends time scoring them. | List only true must-haves: a requirement you would reject a proposal for. Everything else is scored. A proposal that fails any gate is not scored further. Record why. |
| Criteria and weights | Defines what you are scoring and how much each criterion matters. Weights total 100%. | Six to ten criteria is usually enough. More than that and each one carries too little weight to change the outcome. Agree weights with stakeholders before the RFP is issued. The example weights are a starting point, not a standard. |
| Scoring scale | Gives every evaluator the same definition of a 0, a 3 and a 5. | Read the anchors before scoring. "Meets the requirement with evidence" is a 3, not a 5. Score from the proposal and demo, not from a vendor’s reputation. |
| Scores and weighted points | Each evaluator enters 0 to 5 per vendor per criterion; points and totals calculate on their own. | Have evaluators score independently first, then meet to agree a consensus score and note the reason for any change. Rename the Vendor A, B and C headers to the real vendor names. |
| Price sheet | Totals each vendor’s cost over the term and converts it to a 0 to 5 score automatically. | Compare total cost over the same term, including one-time fees, not just the year-one subscription. The formula gives the lowest total a 5 and scores the others in proportion. Replace it if your policy uses a different price method. |

## Sheet: Gates

Any Fail means the proposal is not scored further. Rename Vendor A, B and C.

| Gate | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Submitted on time and complete, with all mandatory forms | Pass | Pass | Pass |  |
| Meets every mandatory requirement, or exception accepted | Pass | Pass | Pass |  |
| Holds required certifications or registrations | Pass | Pass | Pass |  |
| Accepts essential contract terms, or proposes acceptable changes | Pass | Pass | Pass |  |
| [Add your own gate] |  |  |  |  |

Dropdown values:

- **Vendor A:** Pass / Fail
- **Vendor B:** Pass / Fail
- **Vendor C:** Pass / Fail

## Sheet: Scoring

Scores 0-5 (see Scale). Points = weight x score x 20, so totals are out of 100. Price scores come from the Price sheet. Example scores are illustrative.

| Criterion | Weight | Vendor A score | Vendor B score | Vendor C score | Vendor A points | Vendor B points | Vendor C points | Consensus notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Functional fit to requirements | 0.25 | 4 | 3 | 5 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Technical and integration fit | 0.1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Implementation approach and timeline | 0.1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Security, privacy and compliance | 0.1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Experience and references | 0.1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Support and service levels | 0.05 | 3 | 3 | 4 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Usability (demo or trial) | 0.1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) |  |
| Price (total cost over term, from Price sheet) | 0.2 | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) | (calculated) | Calculated |

Dropdown values:

- **Vendor A score:** 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
- **Vendor B score:** 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
- **Vendor C score:** 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5

## Sheet: Price

Enter total cost per year over the same term for each vendor, including one-time fees. Lowest total scores 5; others score in proportion.

| Vendor | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Price score (0-5) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor A | 48000 | 36000 | 36000 | (calculated) | (calculated) |
| Vendor B | 30000 | 30000 | 30000 | (calculated) | (calculated) |
| Vendor C | 55000 | 40000 | 40000 | (calculated) | (calculated) |

## Sheet: Scale

Share this sheet with every evaluator before scoring starts.

| Score | Label | What it means |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Not addressed | No response, or the response does not address the criterion. |
| 1 | Major gaps | Addresses the criterion but with significant gaps or risks that would need major work to close. |
| 2 | Partly meets | Meets some of the criterion; gaps are moderate or the evidence is weak. |
| 3 | Meets | Meets the criterion as written, with credible evidence. |
| 4 | Exceeds in places | Meets the criterion fully and exceeds it in ways that matter to us, with evidence. |
| 5 | Clearly exceeds | Exceeds the criterion in ways that materially reduce risk or add value, demonstrated with strong evidence such as a reference or live demo. |