An RFP exists to make five different vendors answer the same question in a way you can actually compare.

A brief tells one supplier what you need. An RFP (request for proposal) is a formal document built to collect comparable responses from several suppliers at once, so a buying committee (or a single accountable buyer who wants a defensible decision) can score them against the same criteria rather than comparing five differently structured proposals on instinct.

The single most common mistake in South African website RFPs is skipping the scoring structure entirely. A document lists requirements, sends it to four agencies, and receives four responses in four different formats, at four different levels of detail, with no consistent basis for comparison. That is a request for quotes with extra steps, not a real RFP, and it produces exactly the confused, apples-to-oranges comparison problem an RFP process exists to prevent.

This article gives you a structure you can copy directly, including a usable evaluation scorecard and the supplier compliance questions South African procurement processes commonly need, particularly for corporate, NGO or public-sector-adjacent buyers with formal procurement obligations. It also covers the process discipline that makes an RFP actually fair: a genuine Q&A period, consistent scoring, and honest feedback to vendors who do not win.

Beyond company registration details and portfolio, South African procurement processes (especially inside larger corporates, NGOs, educational institutions and public-adjacent organisations) commonly require B-BBEE status level, valid tax clearance status, and proof of relevant insurance where the contract value or risk profile justifies it. Ask for these upfront in the RFP rather than discovering a gap after a preferred vendor has already been selected internally.

Request at least two or three verifiable references from projects of comparable scope, with actual contact details you intend to call, not just logos displayed on a portfolio page. A reference check that actually happens, with a short structured set of questions about timeline accuracy, communication and post-launch support, reveals far more than a polished case study document ever will.

If data handling matters for your organisation (customer data, health information, financial details) ask each vendor directly how they handle data during and after the project, where it is hosted, and what happens to access and backups once the engagement ends. This is a genuinely common gap in smaller agency proposals that a formal RFP process is well positioned to catch before signing.

1. Release the RFP with a clear submission deadlineGive vendors enough time to respond properly, a rushed two-day turnaround produces rushed, generic proposals.
2. Run a defined Q&A periodSet a cutoff date for vendor questions, and share every question and answer with all bidders, not privately to whoever asked first.
3. Close submissions and score consistentlyUse the published scorecard for every proposal, ideally with more than one person scoring independently before comparing notes.
4. Shortlist and hold structured follow-up conversationsUse the same question set with each shortlisted vendor so the comparison stays fair through this stage too.
5. Award and document the decisionRecord why the winning vendor scored highest, this protects the decision internally and gives unsuccessful vendors an honest, specific reason if they ask.

A common instinct is to keep scoring criteria internal, out of a vague sense that transparency weakens negotiating position. In practice, it usually does the opposite: vendors respond to what they can see, so an undisclosed process produces proposals optimised for whatever each vendor guesses matters most (often price, since it is the safest guess when nothing else is stated) rather than the criteria you actually care about.

Publishing the scorecard also protects the buyer internally. When a procurement or leadership review later asks why a particular vendor won, a documented, weighted scoring process is a defensible answer. "We liked their proposal best" is not, and it invites exactly the kind of second-guessing a formal RFP process exists to prevent.

This does not mean every internal detail needs disclosure, budget range, for instance, is a judgment call some buyers prefer to withhold. But the criteria vendors are actually judged against should be visible to every bidder from the start, without exception.

• Background, objectives and desired outcome stated in specific, measurable terms
• Full scope of work, including integrations, content responsibilities and any migration needs
• Evaluation criteria and weightings published inside the document itself
• Supplier compliance requirements listed explicitly: B-BBEE, tax clearance, insurance, references
• A defined Q&A period with answers shared to all bidders
• A realistic submission deadline and evaluation timeline
• Clear submission format and required attachments stated upfront
• A stated decision date, or at minimum a commitment to update bidders on delays

The RFP is not the hard part. Scoring every response against the same table you published, without quietly reverting to gut feel halfway through, is the actual discipline that makes the process worth running.

Jordan Blake, Web & Conversion Strategist

Not every website project needs a formal RFP process. A small business choosing between two or three agencies informally is usually better served by our website brief template, it captures the same core information with far less procurement overhead, and most SME vendors respond well to a clear, specific brief without needing a formal scorecard structure imposed on the process.

A formal RFP earns its overhead when multiple internal stakeholders need to agree on the outcome, when procurement policy requires a documented comparison process, when the project value or risk genuinely justifies compliance checks, or when you are comparing vendors across a meaningfully wider range of size and capability than an informal brief would surface clearly.

If you are unsure which applies to your situation, start with the brief template. If your organisation’s procurement policy or stakeholder count later requires more formal comparison, the brief’s content converts directly into an RFP’s background and scope sections with relatively little additional work.

Copying a generic RFP template wholesale, without tailoring the scope section to your actual project, produces vague responses that are hard to compare meaningfully, vendors can only answer as specifically as the questions allow. Spend the time to write a scope section detailed enough that two vendors reading it would describe roughly the same project back to you.

Setting an unrealistically short submission window is another frequent, self-defeating mistake. A two- or three-day turnaround for a proposal that genuinely requires research, team planning and pricing produces exactly the generic, rushed responses a formal RFP process was meant to avoid, you end up with the worst of both a formal process and an informal one.

Finally, avoid changing the scope or criteria after vendors have already submitted responses without formally reissuing the RFP or extending the deadline for everyone. A mid-process change that only some vendors hear about (because they happened to ask a follow-up question) undermines the fairness the entire structure exists to protect, and can create real disputes if a vendor later feels the process was not run consistently.

Copy the structure above into your own document, fill in your specific background, scope and weightings, and publish the evaluation criteria inside the RFP itself before sending it to any vendor. That single decision (disclosing how you will score responses) does more to improve proposal quality than any other change to a typical RFP.

Set a real Q&A period and commit to sharing every answer with every bidder, even if some questions feel basic. A fair, transparent process produces more comparable, higher-quality responses across the board, including from the vendor you eventually choose.

Send your RFP to Nexus directly if you are running a formal comparison process, we respond to structured RFPs with the same scorecard-aware format they are built around, including references, compliance documentation and a scoped, itemised proposal.