Custom Software Development RFP Template (US-Focused): Download + How to Use

Arbisoft Editorial TeamPosted on February 13, 2026

21-22 Min Read Time

If you are selecting a custom software development partner, the fastest way to improve proposal quality is to stop asking vendors for “a quote” and start asking for comparable answers. A Request for Proposal (RFP) does that by turning your business need into a structured set of questions, formats, and proof requests that multiple vendors can respond to consistently.

This page gives you a copy and paste RFP template for custom software development plus a vendor response structure, so you can evaluate proposals with less guesswork and fewer clarification cycles. For the broader process around shortlisting, evaluation, and governance, use the buyer’s guide to choose the right custom software development partner.

What the RFP template is and who it’s for

A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a structured document used to solicit comparable proposals from multiple vendors for a defined business need.

It is different from:
 

• A Request for Information (RFI), which is typically shorter and used earlier to learn what solutions or vendors exist.
• A Request for Quotation (RFQ), which assumes a well-defined, commodity-like scope that can be priced with minimal variation.
• A Statement of Work (SOW), which is usually a binding contractual description of scope, deliverables, and responsibilities agreed with the selected vendor.

The goal of a custom software development RFP is a defensible partner and approach selection, not a decision based on demos and chemistry alone.

This template is a fit when at least one of these is true:
 

• The project is complex or strategic, like a new customer platform, modernization of a core system, or a multi system integration effort.
• Spend is material, risk is high, or the solution will be business critical for years.
• You need structured answers on delivery governance, security expectations, and commercial terms.
• You want to compare options side by side, like build vs buy or onshore vs offshore.
   

A lighter artifact is usually better when:
 

• You are validating a narrow proof of concept, or doing a short discovery engagement before committing to a full build.
• Spend is modest, the software is non critical, or you already have a near preferred vendor.
• Speed matters more than formal comparability, such as a small internal tool with low data sensitivity.
   

Typical stakeholders for a US focused software services RFP:
 

• Product and business owners: goals, user journeys, success metrics, roadmap.
• Engineering or IT: technical constraints, integrations, architecture principles, operational expectations.
• Security and compliance: data classification, control expectations, evidence thresholds.
• Procurement or sourcing: process, fairness, competitive bidding requirements.
• Legal: IP, data protection, warranties, liability, and other contract topics to address later.
• Finance: budget posture, total cost of ownership, funding constraints.
   

Common failure patterns when teams skip an RFP or run a weak one include choosing based on presentations, discovering late that a vendor cannot meet security needs, under scoping integrations and non functional requirements, and lacking a documented evaluation framework.

Next step: Decide whether you need a full RFP or a lighter brief by checking spend, risk, and how many vendors you truly want to compare.

Before you copy/paste: align internally on the minimum inputs

An RFP only produces priceable, comparable responses if you provide enough context and constraints. If you skip internal alignment, you will get proposals that are full of assumptions and impossible to compare.

Minimum inputs to align before you send anything:
 

• Problem statement: What business problem or opportunity are you addressing, in plain language.
• Objectives and success metrics: Three to five measurable outcomes, framed as ranges when uncertain.
• Scope boundaries: What is in scope vs out of scope for this RFP, plus the biggest assumptions.
• Constraints: Stack constraints, integration dependencies, data classification, compliance expectations, data residency needs.
• Stakeholders and approvers: Sponsor, product owner, technical lead, security contact, procurement lead, legal reviewer, final decision group.
• Budget posture: A range, a ceiling with trade offs, or “vendor propose options” with minimum vs recommended scope.
• Decision timeline: RFP dates, Q&A window, proposal deadline, evaluation window, finalist activities, and whether you plan a BAFO process.
   

A practical way to force alignment is a one page internal brief. Keep it simple:
 

• Problem and why now
• Target users and key workflows
• Outcomes and success metrics
• In scope, out of scope, assumptions
• Constraints and integrations
• Data sensitivity and security baseline
• Budget posture
• Decision timeline and who approves
   

Two details that most improve proposal comparability:
 

• Testable scope boundaries: “Integrate with X API and deliver production ready environment” is testable. “Modernize our platform” is not.
• Standardized timeline and Q&A: Vendors price risk partly based on how clear and fair your process is. If your timeline is vague, proposals will be heavily qualified.
   

Next step: Create the one page internal brief and confirm engineering and product can support vendor Q&A during the response window.

The custom software development RFP template 

How to use it (when + who owns it)

In many US organizations, procurement or sourcing owns the process while product and engineering own the technical content. The most reliable pattern is to assign section owners and make one person accountable for deadlines and vendor communications.

Recommended ownership model:
 

• RFP owner: procurement lead or senior product or IT leader who owns timeline and vendor communication
• Business context owner: product or business sponsor
• Technical owner: engineering or IT lead
• Security owner: security lead
• Legal owner: in house counsel or contracts lead
• Commercial owner: procurement plus finance input
   

A realistic workflow for software services RFPs:
 

• Internal alignment and draft
• Stakeholder review and approvals
• Issue to a shortlist of vendors
• Structured Q&A window
• Proposal review and first pass scoring
• Shortlist finalists
• Finalist presentations and technical deep dives
• Reference checks
• BAFO for two to four finalists when appropriate
• Selection and contracting handoff
   

A baseline response window often cited for complex scopes is about 15 to 20 business days. Shorter windows tend to produce generic proposals or reduce participation.

To keep fairness and comparability in vendor Q&A:
 

• Publish a single point of contact for questions.
• Set a firm question deadline.
• Publish consolidated, anonymized answers to all invited vendors.
• Avoid one off clarifications shared with only one vendor.
   

To reduce “proposal theater” and get evidence based responses:
 

• Ask for artifacts: sample project plan, architecture example, governance templates.
• Ask vendors to tie answers to relevant past projects and outcomes when possible.
• Require “yes or no plus explanation” for critical requirements.
   

Next step: Assign section owners and publish the Q&A rules and response format before you send the RFP.

Custom software development RFP template breakdown (US-focused)

1) Executive summary and background

Include:
 

• Organization overview and business context for the initiative
• Why you are issuing this RFP now
• High level description of current technical landscape that matters to this scope
• What success looks like at the program level
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• A short summary of understanding of the problem and the approach they recommend
• Key risks and assumptions they see upfront
• What they would do in the first four to six weeks

2) Project scope and objectives

Include:
 

• Problem statement in business terms
• Target users and key workflows
• Objectives with indicative success metrics
• In scope list
• Out of scope list
• Assumptions and dependencies you already know
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Confirmation of scope understanding and any clarifying assumptions
• Risks created by unclear scope areas and how they would reduce them
• Options if you want “minimum viable” vs “recommended” scope

3) Functional requirements

Include:
 

• User stories or use cases grouped by workflow or persona
• Mandatory capabilities called out explicitly
• Any required integrations from the user perspective
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• How they would validate requirements during discovery
• How they translate requirements into backlog items and acceptance criteria
• Any requirements they believe are ambiguous or non priceable and what they need to clarify

4) Non-functional requirements (NFRs)

Define non-functional requirements (NFRs) as performance, availability, scalability, security, maintainability, and operational expectations that shape delivery and cost.

Include:
 

• Performance expectations as ranges when uncertain
• Availability expectations and whether 24 by 7 support is required
• Expected user volumes and data growth assumptions
• Operational requirements: logging, monitoring, deployment practices, incident response expectations for production
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• How they test and validate NFRs
• What they would instrument and monitor in production
• The biggest cost and timeline drivers tied to NFRs

5) Technical environment and integrations

Include:
 

• Current stack and platforms in scope
• Required integrations, identity provider, CRM, ERP, data sources, and any constraints
• Expectations for where the solution runs and who owns cloud operations
• Any standards you follow internally
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Proposed architecture approach that fits your environment
• Integration approach and major risks
• How they handle environment setup, CI or CD, and release management

6) Delivery approach and governance

Include:
 

• Preferred working model, such as agile delivery, sprint cadence, release cadence
• Expectations for discovery, backlog management, and change control
• Milestones and acceptance criteria at a high level
• Governance cadence: status reporting, steering meetings, escalation paths
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• A sample delivery plan with phases, milestones, and acceptance criteria
• Their change control approach and how they handle scope shifts
• How they report progress and manage risks

7) Team structure and experience

Include:
 

• Roles you expect: tech lead, product or delivery lead, engineers, QA, UX if needed
• Expectations on allocation and availability for key roles
• Expectations for continuity and knowledge transfer
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Proposed team structure with allocation by role
• Bios or CV summaries for key roles
• Onshore, offshore, or hybrid mix and how they manage time zones
• Subcontractor disclosure and how they manage key person risk and substitutions

8) Security, privacy, and compliance

Keep this section practical. You want enough up front to screen vendors and avoid late stage surprises, without turning the RFP into a full security audit.

Include:
 

• Data classification and sensitivity
• Any control expectations aligned to frameworks you use, for example SOC 2 oriented controls or NIST SP 800 53 inspired control families
• High level expectations for access control, logging, incident response, secure development, and data handling
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Security program overview and how they manage security in delivery
• Incident response outline and ownership
• High level summary of external assessments when applicable
• Any limits or exceptions they want you to know early

9) Pricing and commercial model

Your goal is pricing that is comparable, transparent about assumptions, and tied to scope and risk.

Include:
 

• Whether you will accept fixed price, time and materials (T&M), or hybrid models
• Whether you want vendors to propose options, such as a minimum viable phase and a recommended phase
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• For T&M: rate card by role, estimated hours by phase, and assumptions
• For fixed price: pricing by phase or deliverable, plus assumptions and exclusions
• A clear list of what is not included and what would trigger change control
• Any optional items priced separately

10) Legal and contractual expectations

This section flags topics that will be handled in contracts later. It is not contract language.

Include:
 

• What you expect to use: Master Services Agreement (MSA), Statement of
• Work (SOW), and Service Level Agreement (SLA) where applicable
• High level expectations on IP ownership, open source policy, warranties, and indemnification
• Whether you require a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) pre award
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Any standard positions that diverge from common market expectations
• Confirmation they can support your general approach to IP ownership of custom deliverables
• Subcontractor policies and disclosure expectations

11) Evaluation criteria and process

Vendors respond better when they know what you will value.

Include:
 

• Evaluation categories: technical fit, delivery approach, security posture, commercial value, team and references
• Relative importance or weighting ranges, especially for complex builds where approach and technical fit may matter more than price
• High level timeline for evaluation and finalist steps
• Whether you plan a BAFO round
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• Evidence tied to each category, not general claims
• References for similar scope projects

12) Proposal instructions and deadlines

This is where you force comparability and reduce rework.

Include:
 

• Submission format, maximum length guidance, and required structure
• Deadline for questions and proposal submission
• Required acknowledgements and compliance statements
• Disqualification criteria, such as late submission or missing required sections
   

Ask vendors to provide:
 

• A completed response format pack, using your required fields
• A list of assumptions, exclusions, and dependencies in the required format
   

Next step: Copy the template into your document, delete sections you do not need, and add “what good looks like” prompts to every section you keep.

This RFP is designed to generate the inputs a vendor evaluation scorecard needs: structured responses on requirements, delivery approach, pricing assumptions, security posture, and proof artifacts
 

×

🇺🇸 +1

Download the resource!

Optional: response format to force comparability

Standardizing response format is one of the most effective ways to compare vendors objectively. You can still allow creative proposals, but you want a baseline response that is structured.

Below is a simple “response pack” you can include in your RFP. Vendors can answer in your document or attach a separate response following the same structure.

Response pack details to require:
 

• Team and staffing
  • Role
  • Location and onshore or offshore mix
  • Allocation percentage per role
  • Named individuals if available
  • Employment status, employee vs contractor vs subcontractor
  • Key person risk plan and substitution approach
     
• Timeline and milestones
  • Phases and key activities
  • Deliverables by phase
  • Indicative start and end windows
  • Dependencies on your team or third parties
  • Acceptance criteria or “definition of done” at milestone level
     
• Assumptions and dependencies
  • Assumption
  • Impact if false
  • Who owns mitigation
  • Whether it affects cost, timeline, or scope
     
• Pricing model
  • Model type: T&M, fixed price, hybrid
  • Rate card by role for T&M
  • Fixed fee breakdown by phase or deliverable for fixed price
  • Optional items priced separately
  • One time vs recurring costs if applicable
     

To preserve optionality without destroying comparability:
 

• Require a baseline response that meets your stated scope.
• Allow a separate “options” section where vendors propose improvements or alternative phasing.
• Require options to be clearly labeled as deviations from baseline.
   

Next step: Attach the response pack and state that proposals that do not follow the structure may be treated as non compliant.

Common mistakes and how to fix them

Most low signal RFPs fail for predictable reasons. Fixing them before you issue the RFP saves weeks later.
 

Mistake: Scope is too broad or multi year without phases
Why it hurts: vendors cannot price, so they add heavy assumptions and risk premiums.
Fix: run the RFP for a concrete near term phase, such as discovery plus an initial release, and ask for a high level view of later stages.
 

Mistake: Missing non-functional requirements (NFRs)
Why it hurts: you get feature heavy proposals that ignore performance, availability, and operational realities.
Fix: add NFR ranges and operational expectations, then ask vendors how they test and validate them.
 

Mistake: Unclear decision process and what matters most
Why it hurts: vendors fill proposals with generic content to hedge.
Fix: publish evaluation categories and relative weighting guidance.
 

Mistake: Unrealistic timelines
Why it hurts: vendors respond with generic material or under estimate, leading to disputes later.
Fix: allow a realistic response window for complex scopes, and ensure internal stakeholders can support Q&A.
 

Mistake: Security and legal omissions
Why it hurts: you discover late that a vendor cannot meet data handling expectations or has non negotiable contract positions.
Fix: include baseline security asks and high level legal expectations, plus requests for early disclosure of exceptions.

A fast internal quality check is an “ambiguity audit”:
 

• Have an engineer or PM who did not draft the RFP read it as if they were a vendor.
• Highlight any requirement that is not testable or is open to interpretation.
• Rewrite vague statements into concrete, reviewable asks.
   

Next step: Run the ambiguity audit and revise before you send the RFP to any vendor.

What to evaluate (criteria + trade-offs)

Your evaluation criteria should predict delivery success, not just select the lowest price. Most effective evaluation models group criteria into technical fit, delivery approach, security posture, vendor experience and references, and commercial value.

Core evaluation criteria to consider:
 

• Technical fit and solution approach: alignment with your stack, integrations, and NFRs.
• Delivery approach and governance: discovery plan, backlog management, testing, release process, change control.
• Team reality: staffing plan, allocations, continuity, subcontractor transparency.
• Security and compliance posture: ability to meet your baseline controls and evidence expectations.
• Vendor experience and references: similar scope, similar complexity, and credible references.
• Commercial value: transparent pricing, clear assumptions, reasonable risk allocation.
   

Key trade-offs to make explicit in your scoring discussion:
 

• Fixed price vs T&M: fixed price can improve budget predictability but requires stable scope and often includes risk premium. T&M improves flexibility but requires stronger governance to control cost.
• Onshore vs offshore or hybrid: onshore can reduce coordination friction but costs more. offshore can reduce upfront cost but may require more structure to manage time zones, quality, and legal considerations. Total cost of ownership depends on complexity and process maturity.
• Dedicated team vs project staffing: dedicated teams improve continuity but can be less flexible on utilization. project staffing can be cost effective for narrow scopes but increases ramp up and turnover risk.
• Build vs buy constraints: when commercial options exist, custom build may still win for unique workflows, tight integrations, or differentiation, but you must account for maintenance and ownership.
   

Common disqualifiers you can state up front:
 

• Failure to meet mandatory security requirements
• Inability to provide relevant references
• Very low pricing combined with vague delivery detail, suggesting under estimation or change order risk
• Proposals that ignore your required format and leave critical sections incomplete
   

Next step: Define five to ten must pass criteria, publish them in the RFP, and map them to your evaluation rubric.

Practical verification steps (what to request/check)

An RFP is the start of verification, not the end. Use artifacts and structured activities to validate how a vendor really works.

Artifacts to request as part of a proposal “proof pack”:
 

• Sample project plan and roadmap from a similar engagement, redacted as needed
• Discovery and backlog management templates, including how acceptance criteria are written
• Architecture diagram or design excerpt for a comparable system, redacted as needed
• Governance examples: status report format, risk log, decision log
• Security program overview and incident response outline at a high level
• Open source policy summary and how they handle third party components
   

How to run reference checks that produce signal:
 

• Request two to three references for similar scope and complexity.
• Use a consistent script across vendors:
  • Delivery quality and predictability
  • Communication and issue handling
  • Change control and how scope shifts were managed
  • Team stability and turnover
  • Documentation and handover quality
  • What the client would do differently next time
     

How to validate team reality and reduce surprises:
 

• Ask whether key roles are employees, contractors, or subcontractors.
• Ask for allocation commitments for key roles.
• Ask how substitutions are handled and how knowledge is retained.
   

Security evidence requests that are usually reasonable early:
 

• Security program overview and governance ownership
• Incident response process outline
• High level summary of external assessments when relevant to your risk profile
• Confirmation of alignment to control families you care about, such as access control, logging, and incident response categories
   

Next step: Decide your proof pack requirements and reference check script before you issue the RFP, then apply them consistently to every vendor.
 

Conclusion: next steps after you issue the RFP

Once the RFP is out, the win is disciplined execution.
A practical post RFP flow:
 

• Manage Q&A: consolidate questions, anonymize, publish answers to all vendors.
• Validate proposals: check completeness and basic compliance with instructions.
• First pass scoring: evaluators score independently, then consolidate and discuss.
• Shortlist: select a manageable set of finalists, often two to four.
• Finalist activities: structured presentations, technical deep dives, and reference checks.
• BAFO when appropriate: ask finalists to refine pricing, timeline, or assumptions in a controlled, consistent way.
• Handoff to contracting: align the SOW and MSA to the selected proposal, then complete security and legal review before signing.
   

If proposals are not comparable:
 

• Run a clarification round to normalize assumptions.
• Ask vendors to resubmit specific sections using a tighter response format.
• Re scope into a smaller phase, such as discovery or a pilot, if the initial scope was too broad to price.