Request for proposal (RFP) template for a SAM tool

This template is illustrative only and is not legal or procurement advice. Adapt the requirements, weights and timeline to your organisation and procurement rules before issuing it.

Provision of a Software Asset Management (SAM) Tool

Appendix A: SAM Requirements Questionnaire (Excel).

1. Introduction

1.1. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to invite qualified vendors to submit proposals for the provision, implementation, and support of a Software Asset Management (SAM) tool.

1.2. The organisation requires a solution capable of reconciling software entitlements with deployed assets, supporting vendor-specific license models, enabling cost optimisation, and preparing audit-ready outputs. The system must support integration with existing discovery and inventory tools.

1.3. This RFP outlines the functional, technical, and service expectations for the selected supplier. Vendors are expected to respond in full, using the accompanying questionnaire provided.

2. Background and Objectives

2.1. The organisation operates a complex IT environment with on-premise, virtual, and cloud-based infrastructure. Software is deployed across multiple platforms and managed through a combination of centralised and decentralised controls.

2.2. The objectives of this engagement include:

• Establishing accurate visibility of software consumption across vendors
• Enabling reconciliation of entitlements to usage
• Providing reporting for compliance, risk, and optimisation
• Supporting audit readiness for Tier 1 vendors (e.g. Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, Red Hat)
• Aligning SAM outputs with procurement and service workflows
• Easy to access secure, scalable, and cloud-based environment

3. Scope of Requirements

3.1 License Reconciliation

3.1.1. The solution must support ingestion of entitlement and deployment data. This should include:

• Standard licensing contract and entitlement information
• Software, Hardware and other relevant data from existing systems
• Application of vendor-specific rulesets where available

3.2 Entitlement Handling

3.2.1. The system must support importing entitlements via structured formats (e.g., CSV, XLSX).

3.2.2. Where possible, vendor-specific logic should be used to automate entitlement matching.

3.2.3. The platform should surface mismatches and unused license capacity.

3.2.4. Flexibility to support multiple entitlement structures across vendors is desirable.

3.2.5. A central contract repository to track and manage entitlements.

3.3 Audit Readiness

3.3.1. The tool must provide outputs suitable for vendor audits, including historical license positions and evidencing.

3.3.2. Reporting must be defensible and traceable, with audit trails for key licensing decisions.

3.3.3. External access for audit stakeholders or external consultants is preferred.

3.4 Optimisation

3.4.1. The system should identify opportunities to reassign or reduce entitlements based on deployments.

3.4.2. Categorization of software types to identify overlap for rationalization.

3.4.3. Suggestions should align with cost-saving objectives, including downgrade and re-harvesting strategies.

3.5 Reporting and Dashboards

3.5.1. Dashboards must be available for key roles (SAM, finance, procurement, audit).

3.5.2. Reports should be exportable in common formats (XLSX, CSV, PDF).

3.5.3. Custom reporting capabilities should be included.

4. Integration and Data Sources

4.1. The SAM solution must integrate with one or more existing inventory/discovery tools. These may include endpoint managers, configuration databases, or custom sources.

4.2. The platform must:

• Ingest software and hardware data from external systems
• Normalize and de-duplicate data from multiple sources
• Operate independently of new discovery components unless clearly justified

4.3. Vendors should explain integration methods (API, import templates, direct connectors) and describe available mapping or transformation features.

4.4. Integration with ITSM or CMDB systems (e.g. ServiceNow, Jira Service Management) is desirable to support license provisioning and change workflows.

5. Implementation and Support

5.1. Vendors must provide a delivery approach including resource requirements, expected phases, and estimated timeframes.

5.2. Training must be offered for system administrators and end users.

5.3. Details of support arrangements should include SLAs, escalation procedures, and update cadence.

6. Optional Managed Services

6.1. Vendors may optionally propose managed services to support:

• Periodic license health checks
• Audit preparation and advisory
• Software cost optimisation
• SAM-as-a-Service delivery model

7. Proposal Requirements

7.1. Bidders must complete the accompanying questionnaire and submit the following:

• Executive summary of the proposed solution
• Responses to the functional and technical requirements
• Pricing model and license structure
• Implementation and support details
• One or more client references, preferably in similar industries

8. Evaluation Criteria

9. Project Timeline (Indicative)

10. Appendices

• Appendix A: SAM Requirements Questionnaire (Excel)
• Appendix B: Tooling Environment (to be provided by client)