Commission software RFP template
Every commission tool calculates a flat rate on closed-won correctly in the demo. Your plan is not a flat rate. It has accelerators, splits, a mid-quarter territory change, and a clawback clause, and those are where spreadsheets break and where tools differ. This RFP hands vendors test cases built from your own plan with the expected payout already calculated, and scores whether they get the number right.
Download it
What you get
- Weighted requirements for plan design, crediting, data, statements, disputes, and finance reporting
- Plan-complexity test cases with inputs and the expected payout worked out
- A demo script where vendors configure your plan, not theirs
- Commercial and exit questions, including historical statement export
- A reminder that plan language and payout rules need review by counsel
Who it's for
- Comp administrators moving off spreadsheets
- RevOps and finance teams selecting incentive compensation software
- Sales leaders who want fewer commission disputes
What's inside
5 sections, each listed with its own size. The first is previewed below; the remaining 4 come with the download, with blank rows ready to fill in.
| Section | Size | Previewed |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements | 8 columns, 10 worked example rows | Below |
| Plan-complexity test cases | 7 columns, 5 worked example rows | In the download |
| Scripted demo scenarios | 5 columns, 4 worked example rows | In the download |
| Commercial and exit questions | 8-point checklist | In the download |
| Why test cases beat feature questions | Guidance notes | In the download |
Preview of section 1
Requirements
Response scale: 5 Native, 4 Configuration, 3 Custom, 2 Roadmap (give a date), 1 Not supported. Weights across all requirements add up to 100; the example rows sum to 66, leaving 34 for your own. Requirement score = Response x Weight; vendor total = sum of requirement scores / 5, out of 100.
| ID | Area | Requirement | Priority | Weight | Vendor response (1-5) | Explanation | Evidence link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PL-01 | Plan design | Tiered rates with accelerators, calculated either marginally or retroactively as the plan specifies | Must | 8 | |||
| PL-02 | Crediting | Split credit between reps and overlay credit for managers and specialists | Must | 7 |
How to use it
1. Build test cases from your hardest real deals
Pick the deals that caused disputes or manual fixes last year: a split, an accelerator crossing, a territory change, a clawback. Anonymize them, calculate the correct payout yourself, and include the expected answer in the RFP.
2. Require the vendor to configure, not describe
Shortlisted vendors configure your plan and run the test cases before the demo. In the demo, they show the result and the calculation trail. A payout that matches but cannot be explained to a rep is a fail.
3. Test the data feed
Most commission errors start upstream in CRM and billing data. Score how the tool ingests, validates, and flags bad records before they reach a statement.
4. Ask who maintains the plan next year
Plans change every year. Score whether your comp admin can build next year's plan without vendor services, and what services cost if not.
Frequently asked questions
What should a commission software RFP include?
Weighted requirements for plan design, crediting, data ingest and validation, adjustments, statements, disputes, finance reporting, and admin, plus test cases from your own plan with expected payouts, a scripted demo, and commercial and exit questions.
How do you test incentive compensation software?
Give vendors anonymized cases from your hardest real deals with the correct payout already calculated, have them configure your plan, and check whether their result matches and can be traced back to each credited deal.
When should a company move from spreadsheets to commission software?
A common trigger is when the comp admin spends days each period reconciling, disputes are frequent, or plans include splits, accelerators, and mid-period changes. The test cases in this RFP are a good way to check whether a tool actually reduces that work.