How to Write an FP&A Software RFP That Actually Works

FP&A software RFPs often consume massive time while yielding minimal insight.

Vendors respond with polished, generic answers. Buyers ask obvious questions that every credible platform can answer "yes" to. Top vendors and seasoned partners quietly opt out. The result is a false sense of rigor followed by downstream surprises during implementation, adoption, or scale.

This guide is not anti-RFP. For many organizations, an RFP remains a necessary procurement step.

But if you are going to run one, it needs to surface real differences, not marketing claims.

This guide explains:

• What an FP&A software RFP should and should not be used for
• How to frame requirements around outcomes instead of features
• Which questions actually separate platforms in practice
• What to avoid asking if you want strong vendor participation
• How to evaluate responses without false precision

It concludes with a practical, vendor-agnostic FP&A software RFP template tailored for mid-market finance teams.

They are built as compliance documents, not decision tools.

Common symptoms include:

• Hundreds of checkbox questions that everyone answers "yes" to
• Generic vendor responses copied from prior RFPs
• High-level requirements followed by requests for detailed project plans
• Scoring models that imply precision without delivering insight

To buyers, RFPs feel exhaustive; to vendors, they're low-signal exercises that reward marketing copy over substance.

The predictable outcome: no one learns how the software will actually perform in their environment or deliver value after implementation.

An RFP is meant to:

• Filter vendors that clearly cannot support your use cases
• Surface differences in approach, tradeoffs and operating models
• Establish a baseline for commercial and delivery discussions

An RFP is not meant to:

• Select the final platform
• Replace demos, working sessions, or proofs of concept
• Produce an objective "winner" through scoring alone

Expect it to pick the winner and it will disappoint. Use it to narrow the field and it becomes valuable.

Questions like:

• "Do you support top-down planning?"
• "Can users build scenarios?"
• "Do you support rolling forecasts?"

These do not differentiate modern FP&A platforms.

Instead, anchor the RFP around value at implementation and value after implementation.

Focus on how planning and forecasting actually work in practice, how models evolve over time and how finance teams operate the platform once it is live.

The goal is not to confirm capability in theory, but to understand execution in practice.

Use-case execution

Ask vendors to describe how customers actually perform key workflows, not whether the platform supports them.

Focus on:

• Day-to-day planning and forecasting
• Scenario management under change
• Multi-entity and multi-dimensional complexity
• How finance teams operate the platform after implementation

Architecture and data model

You do not need deep technical detail, but you do need conceptual clarity.

Ask about:

• Core data model philosophy
• How calculations are handled at scale
• How the platform deals with sparsity and complexity
• Versioning and isolation between scenarios

Scalability issues typically hide here.

Implementation and operating model

Ask vendors to explain:

• Typical implementation patterns for similar organizations
• What customers are responsible for versus what the vendor or partner delivers
• Where implementations commonly slow down or fail
• What ongoing administration looks like after go-live

Never ask for detailed project plans without context - they produce fiction, not insight.

Day-two reality

Go-live is not the finish line.

Ask about:

• How models evolve over time
• Performance as complexity increases
• How customers handle organizational or structural change
• What tends to break first as usage grows

Avoid:

• Long lists of yes or no feature confirmations
• Over-engineered scoring matrices that imply false precision
• Requests for detailed project plans based on vague requirements
• RFPs used as gatekeeping exercises rather than evaluation tools

Punitive or overly burdensome FP&A software RFPs drive away top vendors and partners, leaving you with a weaker, not stronger, field.

Best practices include:

• Being explicit about scope and decision process
• Limiting questions to those that truly matter
• Allowing narrative responses instead of rigid formats
• Being realistic about what can be answered without discovery

A good RFP invites thoughtful responses. A bad one rewards generic marketing language.

What to look for:

• Clear explanations instead of buzzwords
• Explicit tradeoffs and limitations
• Consistency across responses
• Evidence of real-world experience

Watch out for:

• Overly polished but vague answers
• Absolute claims without context
• Excessive reliance on screenshots or diagrams

Use the RFP to identify which vendors deserve deeper evaluation, not to declare a winner.

At a high level, it should include:

• Business context and objectives
• In-scope use cases and priorities
• Platform and architecture overview
• Implementation and operating model
• Right-sized security and governance
• Commercial model and cost drivers

Each section should exist for a clear reason. If a section does not influence decision-making, remove it.

Next Reports

Continue exploring FP&A software evaluation and RFP best practices

Should we even run an RFP for FP&A software?

Many organizations require RFPs for procurement compliance. If that's your situation, this guide helps you design an RFP that actually adds value rather than just checking a box. If you have flexibility, you may find that structured demos and working sessions deliver more insight faster.

How long should an FP&A software RFP be?

Keep it concise. A strong RFP can be 10-15 pages focused on the areas that actually differentiate platforms. Longer RFPs tend to produce generic responses and drive away quality vendors. Focus on depth in the right areas rather than breadth everywhere.

Can we use the RFP to select the final vendor?

No. Use the RFP to filter the field to 2-3 finalists, then use demos, working sessions and references to make the final decision. The RFP's job is to identify vendors worth deeper evaluation, not to declare a winner through scoring alone.

What if vendors don't respond to our RFP?

If top vendors opt out, your RFP is likely too burdensome or low-signal. Review this guide and simplify. A well-designed RFP should attract thoughtful responses from quality vendors. If it doesn't, the problem is with the RFP, not the vendors.