# How to Score ERP AI Vendors in an RFP > Source: https://netray.co/erp-help/rfp-scoring-erp-ai-vendors-weighted-matrix > Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems. > Section: ERP Help ## Short answer Score in two passes: pass/fail gates first (deployment, data residency, security, mandatory functionality), then weighted criteria on a defined 0 to 4 scale with evidence required for every score. Fix the weights before bids arrive, score independently, then reconcile, and keep price as a separate, calculated factor. ## Kind how-to ## System cio ## Erp ERP selection and AI ## Module Procurement / vendor scoring ## Query how to score ERP AI vendors in an RFP ## Alternate Queries - ERP vendor scoring matrix weighted criteria - RFP scoring model for AI vendors - ERP RFP evaluation criteria weights - vendor scorecard ERP selection AI ## Applies To ERP selection and AI vendor RFPs, any size; works in Excel or a procurement tool ## Steps ### How to build and run the scoring model **Items:** Define pass/fail gates from your mandatory requirements: required deployment model, data residency, SSO and role enforcement, minimum module coverage, financial viability checks. Failing any gate removes the bid before weighting. List 5 to 8 weighted criteria and assign weights summing to 100 before the RFP is issued. Example for a replacement: functional fit 30, implementation approach and partner 15, technology and integration 15, AI and data capability 15, total cost 15, vendor and references 10. Write a scale with definitions: 0 not met, 1 partially met with gaps, 2 met with configuration, 3 met out of the box with evidence, 4 exceeds with evidence. Scores without evidence cap at 2. Have each evaluator score alone using the same sheet, before any group discussion, to avoid anchoring on the loudest person. Hold a calibration meeting: review any criterion where scores differ by 2 or more and record the reason for the final score. Calculate cost as a five-year total including licences, AI usage, hosting or GPUs, implementation, internal effort and support, and convert to points by formula, for example lowest cost gets full points and others get proportionally fewer. Run a sensitivity check: change weights by plus or minus 5 points and see whether the ranking holds. If it flips, the choice is close and references and the proof of value should decide. ## Sections ### Gates versus weights **Body:** Mixing hard constraints into weighted scoring lets a strong score elsewhere hide a fatal flaw. A vendor that cannot run where your data policy requires should not win because its demo was excellent. Use gates for anything where the honest answer to 'could we sign this bid as written' is no. Keep gates few and genuinely mandatory. If you have 30 of them, you have a requirements list disguised as gates, and you will either disqualify everyone or quietly waive some, which undermines the process in a challenge. The /tools/erp-selection-scorecard and /tools/erp-vendor-demo-scorecard tools provide ready structures for the weighted and demo-stage scoring, which you can adapt to add AI criteria. ### Scoring the AI portion **Body:** Break AI into scorable criteria: grounding and data access, security and role enforcement, deployment fit, model governance, quality evidence, usability, and AI cost transparency. Score from the written answers and from the proof of value, with the proof of value taking precedence when they conflict. Use a graded test: of your 15 test questions, count answers that matched ERP results exactly, were correct but incomplete, or were wrong. Convert to a 0 to 4 score. Include a role test where a low-privilege user asks for restricted data; any leak is an automatic 0 on role enforcement, even if the other results are strong. Do not award points for roadmap items. If a feature matters, require a contractual commitment before it scores above 1. ### Avoiding common bias **Body:** Demo bias is the strongest force in vendor selection. People remember the vendor with the smoothest presenter. Counter it with scripted demos: give every vendor the same scenarios and data, and score during the demo against the scale rather than afterwards from memory. Incumbent bias and sunk cost also matter. Ask evaluators to declare relationships with vendors, and score implementation partner capability separately, since the partner often determines delivery quality more than the software does. For ties or near ties within a few points, use reference calls, the cost of switching later and the quality of the commercial terms. Document the decision rationale in a memo, because auditors and boards ask for it. ### Scoring example **Body:** Suppose Vendor A scores 3 on functional fit (weight 30), 2 on AI capability (15) and has the lowest cost, while Vendor B scores 4 on fit, 3 on AI and costs 18 percent more. Weighted points are the sum of weight times score divided by 4; the cost formula then decides whether B's extra capability is worth the premium. The point is that the trade is explicit and visible rather than argued by anecdote. **Code:** - weighted_points = sum(weight_i * score_i / 4) cost_points = cost_weight * (lowest_5yr_cost / bidder_5yr_cost) total = weighted_points + cost_points ## Pitfalls - Setting weights after seeing the bids, which invites reverse engineering a preferred winner. - Letting AI marketing claims earn points without a test or evidence. - Scoring cost on licence price only and ignoring usage, hosting and internal effort. - Group scoring in a room, where senior opinions dominate. - Not recording why a score changed after calibration. - Waiving a gate for a favoured vendor without telling the others. ## Ai Angle A grounded assistant can reduce arithmetic and recall errors: load the responses and scoring sheet into a private document assistant (DataRay-style chat over the RFP files on-prem) to find where two vendors answered the same question differently or where a mandatory row is missing evidence. It should assist the evaluators, not score for them, and the final scores stay with your team. ## Faq ### What weight should AI get in an ERP RFP? **Answer:** For an ERP replacement, 10 to 20 percent is typical, since the AI layer can be changed more cheaply later. For an AI-only procurement the AI criteria carry most of the weight, with security and deployment as gates. ### How many evaluators should score? **Answer:** Five to eight from different functions is workable: operations, finance, IT, security and an end-user representative. Too many dilutes accountability. Have each score only the sections they can judge, and everyone score overall impressions separately. ### Should price be scored in the same matrix? **Answer:** Yes, but computed by formula from a standard pricing template over five years, and kept separate from quality scoring so evaluators are not influenced by price while judging fit. Combine the two only at the final step. ### What do we do if the top two vendors tie? **Answer:** Use the proof of value result, reference calls, contract flexibility and exit terms as tie-breakers, and write down the reason. Also check the sensitivity analysis: if small weight changes flip the order, treat the tie as real. ## Search terms ERP vendor scoring matrix, RFP scoring model, ERP selection scorecard, weighted criteria ERP RFP, score AI vendors, RFP evaluation criteria ERP, vendor evaluation matrix, ERP RFP scoring template, demo scoring ERP, ERP selection decision matrix --- Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json