An RFP is a formal written request asking vendors to respond against your stated requirements, commercial terms and security expectations. It suits regulated organisations, public bodies and large multi-country rollouts. Smaller teams usually get better results from a short requirements document plus hands-on evaluation, because an RFP rewards proposal writing more than product fit.
Six parts, in a predictable order. Context describes your organisation, hiring volume, locations and the systems already in place. Scope states what you are buying and what is excluded. Requirements list the numbered functional, data, security and integration items vendors must respond to. Commercial asks for the pricing model, the drivers that change cost, contract length and renewal terms. Implementation asks for approach, timeline, responsibilities and support model. Process sets the dates, the format of responses, the evaluation criteria and how questions are handled. The section teams most often write badly is evaluation criteria, because publishing your weights feels like giving away leverage. Publishing them actually improves responses, since vendors focus their effort on what you said matters instead of guessing.
When procurement policy requires it, when you are buying for multiple countries or business units with conflicting needs, or when the contract value makes a documented, defensible process necessary. In those situations the paperwork is doing real work: it creates comparability across a large field, it forces internal alignment before anyone talks to a vendor, and it produces an audit trail. It is the wrong choice when a small team runs it because it feels rigorous. The cost is significant in time, it lengthens the cycle by months, and it selects for vendors with dedicated bid teams rather than the best fit for a fifty-person company. A tight requirements list plus two hands-on evaluations gets you a better answer faster at that scale.
Score the written responses to build a shortlist, then verify everything that matters in live product. Written answers are drafted by people whose job is winning bids, so treat yes as a claim rather than a fact, and pay attention to the qualifiers: standard, configurable, on the roadmap, achievable through services. Those words carry the cost and the risk. Ask every shortlisted vendor to demonstrate the ten requirements that carry the most weight, using your own scenario and your own sample data. Where an answer says configurable, ask who configures it and how long it takes. Where an answer references the roadmap, treat the capability as absent for decision purposes. Verification against [the features you will use every week](/ats-features) is what turns a paper exercise into a real decision.
Three recur. The first is a requirements list assembled by copying a template, which produces hundreds of lines nobody weighted and responses nobody can compare. The second is running it as a pure paper exercise, awarding on written scores alone and discovering the fit problems during implementation. The third is timing: an RFP that takes five months to run against a market that moves quickly can conclude with a decision based on evidence that has aged. Guard against all three by keeping the requirement count disciplined, building a live verification stage into the timeline, and setting decision dates before you launch. Also agree internally who is allowed to talk to vendors during the process, because uncontrolled side conversations undermine the fairness the RFP exists to guarantee.
Get a personalized walkthrough of Pitch N Hire on your own roles and workflow. No slides, no obligation.
Prefer to talk? Book a demo · View pricing
Free 1-user plan · No credit card · Talk to a real hiring expert
See your true cost-per-hire and how much Pitch N Hire could save you — our free Recruitment ROI Calculator gives you the numbers in under a minute. No signup required.
Open the free ROI calculatorPrefer a tailored walkthrough on your real roles? Drop your work email:
★ Free 1-user plan · No spam · Talk to a real hiring expert
