Six sections cover what districts need to know: (1) District context and background, (2) Functional requirements (what the system needs to do), (3) Technical requirements (integrations, security, hosting), (4) Implementation and support expectations, (5) Vendor qualifications and stability, (6) Evaluation criteria and scoring.

Some districts add a seventh section on contract terms and service-level commitments, which is helpful if your procurement office requires it.

Long enough to surface real differences between vendors, short enough that vendors will respond thoroughly. For most districts, 15 to 25 pages is the right range. Shorter than 15 and you're likely missing important detail. Longer than 25 and you'll get incomplete responses from smaller vendors and formulaic responses from larger ones.

Ask about implementation. Every vendor will say they support state reporting; not every vendor will detail exactly how long it takes to configure that reporting for your specific state. Ask about turnover. Every vendor will say they have great support; not every vendor can name your specific customer success manager and describe how account transitions are handled. Ask about specific failure scenarios: what happens when a state reporting requirement changes mid‑year? What happens when we lose our primary internal SIS admin?

This is where the gap between legacy platforms and modern ones like Alma tends to show up clearly. Alma's implementation team can speak to specific state reporting timelines because the configuration work is standardized rather than custom-built for each district, and account continuity is handled by a named team rather than a rotating support queue.

A reasonable starting point: 30% functional fit, 25% implementation approach and support, 20% technical fit and security, 15% vendor stability and references, 10% total cost. Adjust based on your district's specific priorities, but avoid weighting cost above 20% - it predicts poor procurement outcomes.

Yes, and specify what you want. Ask for at least three references from districts similar to yours in size, state, and program mix. Require permission to contact them without vendor mediation. Ask specifically for references from districts that switched to the vendor within the last three years, not just longtime customers.

Schedule demos after the initial RFP scoring, with the top three to five vendors. Provide each vendor with a demo script based on your district's actual workflows - do not accept vendor-directed demos. Score demos against the same evaluation criteria as the written response, using consistent evaluators across all demos.

Alma tends to score well specifically because the RFP structure above rewards operational substance over feature checklists. Alma's implementation timelines are typically 30 to 50 percent faster than legacy platforms, state reporting automation is built in rather than bolted on, and reference districts can speak concretely to account continuity and support responsiveness. Ask Alma to respond to your RFP directly against this structure and compare the specificity of the answers to what other vendors provide.