A requirements template turns vendor demonstrations from sales theatre into evidence gathering. Copy the tables below into a spreadsheet, send the questions to every finalist, and score the written replies rather than the presenters. A downloadable version is planned; for now everything on this page is designed to be copied directly. Pair it with the best QMS software shortlist to decide who receives it.
How to use this template
First, mark each requirement must, should or could. Must items are pass or fail: a vendor failing one leaves the process, whatever its total score. Should items influence scoring. Could items break ties only. Limit must items ruthlessly, ideally to fifteen or fewer, or every vendor will fail and the exercise collapses.
Second, demand written answers with evidence. Ask for screenshots, sample reports, reference customers or documentation extracts, not yes answers. Third, keep the same questions for every vendor so replies stay comparable, and record answers verbatim in the vendor response column. Finally, score as a group, quality, operations and IT together, and keep the completed sheet as objective evidence of your selection decision. The companion QMS software requirements checklist helps you prepare before this fuller template.
Requirements table
Area is shown at the start of each requirement so rows stay grouped when sorted.
| Requirement | Why it matters | Priority | Vendor response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documents: version control with approval workflows and audit trail | Prevents obsolete procedures reaching the floor | Must | |
| Documents: periodic review reminders and read receipts | Shows who must act and who has read changes | Should | |
| CAPA: root cause fields, effectiveness checks and escalation | CAPA quality decides audit outcomes | Must | |
| CAPA: linkage from complaints, audits and nonconformances | Stops issues fragmenting across registers | Must | |
| Audits: scheduling, checklists, findings and follow up actions | Audit evidence must be retrievable in minutes | Must | |
| Training: role based matrices and expiry alerts | Competence records are inspected constantly | Must | |
| Training: training triggered automatically by document change | Closes the commonest document control gap | Should | |
| Supplier: approved supplier lists, scorecards and re evaluation | Supplier control is a core ISO 9001 duty | Should | |
| Complaints: intake, investigation, regulatory reporting fields | Complaint handling carries legal deadlines | Must | |
| Change control: impact assessment and linked retraining | Unassessed change creates uncontrolled risk | Must | |
| Validation: IQ, OQ and PQ evidence or support package | Regulated buyers must qualify the system | Must | |
| Integrations: API access and named ERP, CRM or PLM connectors | Manual rekeying breeds transcription errors | Should | |
| Commercial: full three year cost including implementation | Licence price alone understates commitment | Must | |
| Commercial: exit terms and complete data export format | You must be able to leave without hostage data | Must |
RFP questions by area
Send these questions as written. Vague replies are data too, so score them accordingly. Our guide on how to choose QMS software explains how the answers feed a final decision.
Documents and CAPA:
- How are superseded documents withdrawn from points of use?
- Can approval routes differ by document type and site?
- Does a CAPA record show overdue effectiveness checks on a dashboard?
- Can one CAPA link to several originating events without duplication?
Audits and training:
- How are audit findings converted into tracked actions?
- Can external audit evidence be exported as one pack?
- How does the system rebuild a training matrix after a role change?
- What happens when an employee misses a training deadline?
Supplier, complaints and change:
- How are supplier performance scores calculated and reviewed?
- Can suppliers upload certificates through a controlled portal?
- How are complaint deadlines for regulators tracked and escalated?
- Does change control force an impact assessment before approval?
- Which linked records update automatically when a change is approved?
Validation, integrations and commercial:
- What validation evidence is supplied, and what remains our work?
- How is validation maintained after each software release?
- Which integrations are native, which use an API, and who builds them?
- How are user licences counted for occasional and read only users?
- What does implementation include, and what is charged separately?
- What are the renewal, uplift and module expansion terms?
- How do we export every record, attachment and audit trail on exit?
- Which reference customer of our size and sector may we call?
Scoring sheet
Score each criterion from 0 to 10, multiply by the weight, and total the results. These criteria and weights match how we evaluate QMS software, so vendor replies and our published desk research stay directly comparable. Adjust the weights before scoring if your organisation values differ, and record why.
| Criterion | Weight | Score out of 10 | Weighted score | Evidence seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standards and compliance fit | 25 percent | |||
| Module depth | 25 percent | |||
| Ease of use and implementation | 20 percent | |||
| Pricing transparency and value | 15 percent | |||
| Support and vendor stability | 15 percent | |||
| Total | 100 percent |
Add a must requirement gate above the arithmetic: any failed must requirement caps the total at zero until resolved. For budget checks while scoring, compare totals against the QMS software pricing evidence on models, implementation and validation costs.
Red flag answers
Treat evasive language as a warning. Fully configurable often means nothing works until a project builds it. On the roadmap means absent today, so score it as absent. Validation ready means little without named protocols and sample evidence. Unlimited users can still exclude the licence types your occasional users need. Integration supported may describe an API nobody has connected to your ERP yet. A refusal to provide reference customers, export samples or three year pricing in writing is itself an answer, and usually the clearest one you will receive.
Equally, watch for demonstrations performed entirely on vendor data, quotations that exclude training or migration, and claims about standards that the vendor will not repeat in the contract schedule.
Practical question
If a vendor answered every question above but refused to do so in writing, would your organisation still buy from them? If not, make written replies a condition of staying in the process today, before demonstrations create emotional commitment that evidence cannot undo.