An effective RFP for an audit automation vendor is a structured document with numbered questions across six sections — functionality and scope, data handling and security, pricing structure, implementation and support, references, and roadmap — sent identically to every vendor under consideration, because the only way to compare three vendors fairly is to ask all three the exact same questions in the exact same order and insist on written answers rather than a call.
Before sending it: set the ground rules
- Ask for written answers to each numbered question, not a general proposal document that may skip the hard ones.
- Set a response deadline and tell all vendors the same deadline — a vendor who needs much longer than the others to answer is itself a data point.
- State upfront how the firm will compare responses (see the companion comparison-spreadsheet article), so vendors know specifics will be checked against each other.
Section 1: Functionality and scope
- List every audit area the firm needs covered (e.g. purchase/AP, revenue cutoff, bank and cash, fixed assets, inventory, payroll, related party, CARO) and ask the vendor to state, area by area, whether it is fully supported, partially supported, or not supported.
- Does the platform support GSTR-2B/2A reconciliation at line level, and can it ingest a Tally export directly?
- Can the firm configure its own working paper templates and checklists, or is the methodology fixed by the vendor?
- What is explicitly out of scope today that the firm should not assume the product does?
Section 2: Data handling and security
This section can simply reference the firm's security questionnaire as an attachment rather than duplicating it, but at minimum the RFP should require written answers to data residency, access control, and AI training policy before a vendor is shortlisted.
Section 3: Pricing structure
| Question | Why it's asked this way |
|---|---|
| Is pricing per-seat, per-engagement, per-client, or flat firm-wide? | The model matters more than the headline number — see the firm's actual staffing pattern against it |
| What is the total cost at the firm's current engagement volume and staff count, stated as a number, not a range? | Forces a concrete quote rather than a 'starting from' figure |
| What is included (support, updates, training) versus billed separately? | A low headline price with significant add-ons is not actually a low price |
| What happens to the price if the firm's volume doubles next year? | Reveals how the model scales, which matters for a multi-year decision |
Section 4: Implementation and support
- What is the typical time from contract signature to a firm's first live engagement on the platform?
- Who provides training — the vendor directly, a partner, or self-serve documentation only?
- What are the support channels and response-time commitments during busy season specifically, not as an annual average?
- Is there a named implementation contact, or does the firm get routed through a general support queue?
Section 5: References
Ask for two to three references from firms of comparable size and client mix, and ask the vendor to facilitate a direct call, not just provide a name and hope the firm doesn't follow up. See the companion article on what to actually ask those references.
Section 6: Roadmap
- What has shipped in the last two releases, with dates, versus what is only planned?
- If a needed feature is on the roadmap but not shipped, what is the committed timeline, and is it in writing?
A vendor that responds only with a generic proposal deck and skips the numbered questions, even after being asked twice, has told the firm something useful about how the relationship will go after the contract is signed too.
Common practice, not a requirement
Sending the identical document to every vendor under consideration, and requiring the same deadline, is the single change that makes RFP responses comparable. Without it, a firm ends up comparing a confident two-page answer from one vendor against a glossy forty-page deck from another, which is not really a comparison at all.
This is practical guidance written for audit teams, not an authoritative statement of any standard or statute. Standards, forms and timelines change. Check the current text issued by the ICAI and the relevant authority before relying on anything here in an audit file.
Related resources
- Technology, data & AI in auditChoosing an audit automation vendor: a checklistThe questions that separate a vendor worth trusting with client data from one that merely demos well: security, what's computed versus generated, exit terms, pricing, and India-specific fit.
- Technology, data & AI in auditAudit software security questionnaire: a buyer's checklistThe questions a firm's own IT or compliance reviewer raises before sign-off, listed so they can be answered before the vendor call, not during it.
- Technology, data & AI in auditA side-by-side comparison framework for 3 audit automation vendorsThree demos on three different days leave a firm with three separate impressions, not a comparison. A shared scoring sheet fixes that.
- Technology, data & AI in auditWhat to ask an audit software vendor's reference clientsA reference call that only asks "are you happy with it" gets a polite yes almost every time. Here's what actually surfaces the real answer.
Free tools, no signup
Each one reads a file entirely in your browser — or, for two of them, just answers a few questions — and nothing is ever uploaded.
- Purchase register checkDuplicate payments, round-sum amounts, weekend-dated invoices, incomplete records.
- GSTR-2B reconcilerMatches your purchase register against GSTR-2B — missing invoices either side, amount mismatches.
- Bank reconciliation checkerMatches your cash book against a bank statement — what's outstanding on each side.
- Fixed asset register checkDuplicate asset codes, missing location or useful life, negative net book value.
- Payroll red-flag scannerBank accounts shared across employees, and records missing an ID, PAN or salary.
- CARO applicability checkerAnswer a few questions about the company and see which CARO 2020 clauses likely apply.
- MSME payment delay checkerMSME-flagged invoices paid — or still unpaid — beyond the 45-day Section 22 limit.
- Related-party transaction screenerTransactions above a threshold you set with no approval reference, grouped by counterparty.
- Depreciation useful life checkerCompares a useful life in use against the Schedule II, Part C indicative figure.
- Materiality calculatorOverall and performance materiality against PBT, revenue, assets or equity, with reasoning shown.
- Sample size calculatorStatistical sample size for a test of controls or a substantive test of detail.