1. [Home](/)
2. [Templates](/templates)
3. RFP evaluation and scoring template

Free template · Excel + Markdown · For buyers

# RFP evaluation and scoring matrix template

An RFP evaluation template is the scoring sheet a buying team uses to compare proposals consistently: pass/fail gates first, then weighted criteria scored on a defined scale, with price scored by formula so it cannot quietly dominate or disappear. This one scores three vendors on eight criteria, converts everything to points out of 100 and shows the ranking as you type.

No email or sign-upEditable Excel + MarkdownFree to reuse

Updated Oct 2026

## Download the RFP evaluation and scoring template

Weighted 0-5 scoring for three vendors, pass/fail gates, defined anchors and automatic price scoring.

- [Download Excel.XLSX · 30 KB](/templates/rfp-evaluation-scoring-template.xlsx)
- [Download Markdown.MD · 5 KB](/templates/rfp-evaluation-scoring-template.md)

Direct download, no form. Works in Word, Google Docs and LibreOffice Writer. The Markdown copy is plain text for wikis, Notion or an AI assistant.

## What it is and when to use it

Set the criteria and weights before the RFP goes out, and publish them in the RFP if you can. Responders write better proposals when they know what counts, and a weighting decided after reading the proposals is easy to challenge. Vendors can use the same sheet in reverse: score your own draft against the buyer’s published criteria before you submit.

### Use it when

- More than one person is evaluating, and you need scores that can be compared and explained.
- You are choosing software (including RFP software) and want the decision documented.
- Your procurement policy requires a defensible, criteria-based award.

### Skip it when

- Lowest-price purchases of a fully specified item, where an RFQ and a price comparison are enough.
- Public procurements with a mandated scoring method or evaluation tool: follow the mandated method.

## What is inside the template

The workbook opens on an Instructions sheet, followed by 4 working sheets: Gates, Scoring, Price, Scale. Shaded cells are inputs; cells marked Auto below are formulas.

### 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     |       |

Preview shows 4 of 5 pre-filled rows.

### 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       | 25%    | 4              | 3              | 5              | Auto            | Auto            | Auto            |                 |
| Technical and integration fit        | 10%    | 3              | 4              | 3              | Auto            | Auto            | Auto            |                 |
| Implementation approach and timeline | 10%    | 4              | 3              | 2              | Auto            | Auto            | Auto            |                 |
| Security, privacy and compliance     | 10%    | 5              | 4              | 3              | Auto            | Auto            | Auto            |                 |

Preview shows 4 of 8 pre-filled rows.

### 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  | Auto  | Auto              |
| Vendor B | 30000  | 30000  | 30000  | Auto  | Auto              |
| Vendor C | 55000  | 40000  | 40000  | Auto  | Auto              |

### 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.                                         |

Preview shows 4 of 6 pre-filled rows.

## How to fill it in, section by section

### 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.

## Common mistakes

### Setting weights after reading proposals

Weights chosen once you know who you like will drift toward that vendor, and the paper trail will show it. Fix them before release.

### Undefined scores

Without anchors, one evaluator’s 4 is another’s 2 and the average means nothing. Share the scale and calibrate on one proposal together.

### Price swamping everything (or nothing)

Scoring price as a raw dollar figure next to 0-5 scores breaks the math. Convert price to the same scale, as the Price sheet does, and weight it deliberately.

### Averaging instead of discussing

Averages hide disagreements that matter. Where evaluators differ by two points or more, discuss the evidence and record the consensus reason.

### Scoring the demo, not the proposal

A polished demo can carry an unremarkable proposal. Score usability on the demo, and everything else on what the vendor committed to in writing.

## Tools that automate parts of this

This directory covers response software, not buyer-side evaluation tools. Two practical uses here: responders can score their own draft against a buyer’s published criteria before submitting, and buyers choosing RFP software can use the matrix during trials.

- VI![VisibleThread logo](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=visiblethread.com&sz=128)[VisibleThread](/visiblethread): Compliance checking against the solicitation and evidence-grounded insights on draft quality, useful for self-scoring a response.
- TE![Tenderbolt logo](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=tenderbolt.ai&sz=128)[Tenderbolt](/tenderbolt): Drafts technical proposals aligned point by point to the requirements, with go/no-go analysis of the tender.
- LO![Loopio logo](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=loopio.com&sz=128)[Loopio](/loopio): If you are scoring RFP software itself: a library-first platform to compare against AI-native tools.
- IN![Inventive AI logo](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=inventive.ai&sz=128)[Inventive AI](/inventive-ai): If you are scoring RFP software itself: AI drafting with a citation and confidence score on each answer.

Capabilities above are restated from each vendor’s profile, where the sources are listed. Confirm current features and pricing with the vendor before you buy.

## Related pages

- Compare the category: [RFP response software tools](/rfp-response-software)
- Comparison: [Loopio vs Responsive](/comparisons/loopio-vs-responsive-2026)
- Comparison: [AutoRFP.ai vs Inventive AI](/comparisons/autorfp-ai-vs-inventive-ai-2026)
- Template: [RFI template](/templates/rfi-template)
- Template: [Vendor security questionnaire template](/templates/vendor-security-questionnaire-template)
- All free templates: [RFP, DDQ and security questionnaire templates](/templates)

## Frequently asked questions

How do you score an RFP response?

Screen proposals against pass/fail gates, then have each evaluator score every criterion on a defined scale such as 0 to 5\. Multiply by the criterion weights, total the points, and hold a consensus meeting to agree final scores and record the reasons.

What are typical RFP evaluation criteria?

Functional fit, technical and integration fit, implementation approach, security and compliance, experience and references, support, usability and price. The right weights depend on what matters most for the purchase.

How much weight should price get in an RFP evaluation?

There is no single right answer: it depends on how differentiated the options are and on your procurement rules. Decide the price weight before release and score price on the same scale as everything else.

How does the price scoring formula work?

The lowest total cost over the term scores 5 and every other vendor scores 5 multiplied by the lowest total divided by its own total. It is one common method; replace it if your organization prescribes another.

Should evaluation criteria be shared with vendors?

Sharing the criteria, and ideally the weights, usually produces better-targeted proposals and a more defensible decision. Many public-sector procurement rules require it.

Can I use this template to evaluate RFP software?

Yes. Replace the criteria with the jobs you need the software to do, such as drafting accuracy, source citations, import and export of your file formats, collaboration and price, then score each vendor after a trial on your own documents.