Start with the workflow you actually need
Define whether the team mainly completes spreadsheet questionnaires, writes narrative proposals, or handles recurring security and due diligence responses. Specify the input format, expected output, contributors, review authority, and typical volume. A platform that excels at one workflow may not be the best fit for another.
Agree non-negotiable requirements before scoring convenience features. If an access-control requirement or required output format cannot be demonstrated, a high writing-quality score should not cancel out that failure. Record unresolved security and contractual questions for your authorized reviewers.
Prepare a safe, deliberately imperfect test pack
Use synthetic or approved redacted material until your team has authorized the vendor's data handling. Include a short RFP, a current product description, an older conflicting policy, and a document that should be out of scope. Mark which source is current and write down the expected outcome before running the test.
| Test | Expected behavior | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| Supported question | Draft uses the correct source and preserves its conditions. | Accuracy, source location, and reviewer corrections. |
| Missing evidence | The gap is visible instead of becoming an invented positive claim. | How the reviewer identifies and resolves the gap. |
| Conflicting versions | Conflict is surfaced or handled using a demonstrable source policy. | Which version was used and why. |
| Scope / permissions boundary | An unrelated or unauthorized source is not used to justify the answer. | Actual access behavior and the limits demonstrated in the pilot. |
Score observable evidence, not sales answers
Use 0 for not demonstrated, 1 for partially demonstrated, and 2 for demonstrated against the agreed test. Leave untested items explicitly untested rather than treating them as failures or successes. Attach a source, screenshot, export, or reviewer note to each score. The downloadable scorecard contains twelve checks and a separate required-gate field.
If you use weights, choose them before seeing vendor results and report required-gate failures separately. Do not describe this editorial worksheet as an independent certification or a scientific benchmark.
- Measure the time to prepare sources and reach a first usable draft.
- Record subject-matter expert review and correction time separately.
- Check whether sources remain easy to inspect after editing.
- Export to the buyer's actual format and measure cleanup time.
- Ask a real occasional reviewer to complete a handoff, not only the proposal administrator.
Compare the complete operating cost
Ask what the quoted package includes: users, occasional reviewers, project or question limits, source connections, onboarding, support, and required integrations. Clarify how renewals, overages, and additional workspaces are priced. A headline entry price is not a like-for-like comparison when the usage units differ.
Record the commercial quote date and the exact plan tested. Keep vendor claims separate from behavior your team observed. Our comparison pages provide a shortlist and official sources; they do not replace your pilot or your procurement and security review.
Compare ten AI RFP platformsQuestions to ask about SavixRFP security
Quick checklist
- Workflow, required gates, and output format defined first
- Test data is approved for use
- Missing and conflicting evidence cases tested
- Reviewer and export effort recorded
- Costs and untested assumptions documented
Put the guide to work
Twelve pilot checks with blank evidence, required-gate, and 0–2 score fields. Set your own mandatory gates before testing; no vendor receives a pre-filled score.
Download the evaluation scorecardNo signup required. Adapt the template to your own process.
Published by SavixRFP, the team behind the RFP response workspace. Examples are illustrative; adapt the worksheets to your buyer's instructions and your own approval process.
