Corporate Travel RFP Guide: How to Write, Issue, and Score an RFP

‍

‍

‍

Writing, Scoring, and Sending an RFP

A corporate travel RFP is not just a vendor comparison exercise. It is a structured way to define what the program needs, force comparable pricing, and build a scorecard that makes the final decision easy to defend.

This guide covers when an RFP is worth the effort, how to scope the project, what questions to ask, how to avoid pricing traps, and how to score responses. It is designed for procurement, finance, operations, and anyone responsible for travel policy and traveler support.

When a corporate travel RFP makes sense

An RFP tends to be worth it when at least one of these is true:

• Travel spend is growing and leadership wants measurable savings and stronger controls
• Too many bookings are happening outside policy, with no reliable way to correct behavior
• Finance needs simpler reconciliation, cleaner invoices, and fewer reimbursements
• Support quality is inconsistent, especially during disruptions
• Duty of care requirements have increased due to risk, compliance, or international travel
• The company needs better reporting, cost allocation, or project-level tracking
• Existing tools do not integrate well with SSO, expense systems, or internal reporting

If travel volume is low, you can often select vendors with a lighter process. If multiple stakeholders depend on travel, a structured RFP prevents surprises after rollout.

Travel management RFP vs corporate travel agency RFP

These phrases get used interchangeably, but they often refer to different scopes.

Travel management RFP (program scope)
This is the right approach when you need a complete program that may include online booking, policy configuration, reporting, payment options, traveler support, and implementation.

Corporate travel agency RFP (service scope)
This is the right approach when you mainly need agent servicing, complex itinerary support, exchanges, disruptions, and after-hours coverage, especially if booking tools are already set.

You can ask vendors to propose on both scopes, but your RFP must be explicit so you can compare responses.

Recommended RFP timeline and stakeholder roles

Most corporate travel RFPs fail for one of two reasons: the scope is fuzzy, or stakeholders are not aligned. A simple timeline and role map prevents both.

Typical phases:

1. Discovery: goals, constraints, must-haves
2. Draft RFP: requirements, pricing template, scorecard
3. Issue RFP: vendor Q&A window, response deadline
4. Review: score responses, shortlist
5. Demos: scenario-based demos, reference checks
6. Finalist round: commercials, security review
7. Implementation: configuration, integrations, training, rollout

Key stakeholders:

• Procurement: process owner, pricing template, negotiation, contract terms
• Finance: billing model, controls, reconciliation outputs, cost allocation
• Program owner (Ops or People): policy rules, adoption, traveler experience
• IT: SSO and integrations, access controls, data flows
• Security/Risk: duty of care, incident response, vendor risk assessment
• Traveler representatives: usability feedback and real-world scenarios

Scope and requirements checklist

This section is what turns your RFP from “marketing responses” into “usable proposals.”

Program overview (fill in)

• Company size: [employees]
• Estimated travelers: [count]
• Trip types: [day trips, multi-city, international, field work, executive]
• Primary regions: [regions]
• Approx annual travel volume: [range is fine]
• Current booking channels: [tool(s), direct, unmanaged]
• Target go-live window: [date range]

Goals (select top 3 to 6)

• Reduce total travel cost
• Increase policy compliance and reduce leakage
• Improve traveler support during disruptions
• Simplify billing, reduce reimbursements, improve reconciliation
• Enable cost allocation by department, cost center, or project
• Improve visibility and duty of care

Must-have capabilities (example list)

• Booking with configurable policy rules, guardrails, and traveler groups
• Approval workflows for exceptions and restricted bookings
• Hotel content appropriate for frequent work trips and longer stays
• 24/7 support with clear SLAs and escalation paths
• Billing options that reduce reimbursements when possible
• Reporting exports and scheduled reports
• Clear onboarding plan, training materials, and adoption support

Vendor questionnaire (copy and paste)

Use a question bank like this so vendors have to answer directly.

A) Company and product fit

1. Describe your solution in one paragraph. What is included by default?
2. Are you a travel management platform, a corporate travel agency, or both?
3. What customer profiles do you serve best (SMB, mid-market, enterprise)?
4. Provide three references with comparable program size and complexity.

B) Booking and policy controls

1. How is policy configured (rules, exceptions, traveler groups)?
2. Can policy differ by department, cost center, role, region, or traveler type?
3. What controls exist for hotel rate caps, refundable rates, preferred suppliers?
4. What approval workflows exist, and what can be enforced automatically?

C) Support model and SLAs

1. Support channels offered (phone, chat, email), and coverage hours
2. SLAs for first response and resolution, plus escalation process
3. How disruptions are handled (airline cancellations, storms, outages)
4. Are changes self-serve, agent-assisted, or both?

D) Payments and billing

1. Billing options (invoice, centralized payment, traveler cards, mixed)
2. Can you reduce reimbursements? If yes, how?
3. How are incidentals handled, and what controls exist?
4. Can billing be segmented by department, cost center, or project?
5. What invoice detail is available for reconciliation?

E) Reporting and analytics

1. Sample reporting: spend, compliance, adoption, savings signals
2. Scheduled exports, APIs, or integrations into BI tools
3. Cost allocation support and required data fields

F) Implementation and change management

1. Implementation plan, timeline, dependencies, and staffing
2. Supported integrations (SSO, expense, HRIS, ERP)
3. Training plan for admins and travelers
4. Pilot and rollout options

G) Security and compliance

1. Security documentation and controls, including access controls and encryption
2. Data retention policy and incident response approach
3. Support for SSO, MFA, and role-based access

Pricing models and how to force apples-to-apples comparisons

Pricing is where proposals become hard to compare. Your RFP should include a standard pricing template and a usage scenario that vendors must price against.

Common structures include subscription fees, per-transaction fees, change fees, support tiers, and implementation costs. Some vendors bundle services, others itemize heavily. A template prevents hidden costs.

Implementation requirements that actually matter

A strong RFP includes implementation expectations, not just features.

Ask vendors to provide:

• A project plan with milestones and client responsibilities
• Named roles (implementation lead, support lead, program owner)
• A testing plan for policy, approvals, billing, and reporting
• Training materials and rollout approach (pilot vs phased vs big bang)
• Post-launch check-ins and adoption reporting

A simple requirement that helps: vendors must provide a draft project plan within five business days of selection, and weekly status until go-live.

Scoring matrix and sample weights

Scoring is what makes selection defensible. Use a clear rating scale and weighted categories.

Rating scale:

• 1: Does not meet requirement
• 2: Partially meets requirement
• 3: Meets requirement
• 4: Exceeds requirement
• 5: Best in class

Suggested weighted categories:

• Booking UX and adoption: 15%
• Policy controls and approvals: 15%
• Support and SLAs: 15%
• Payments and billing: 15%
• Reporting and analytics: 15%
• Implementation plan: 10%
• Security and compliance: 10%
• Commercials and total cost: 5%

Common RFP mistakes

• No standardized pricing template, which makes costs impossible to compare
• Demos that are feature tours, not scenario-based evaluations
• Too many “nice to have” requirements, not enough must-haves
• Underestimating implementation complexity and dependencies
• Not defining support SLAs, escalations, and after-hours coverage
• Stakeholders disagreeing late because weights were never aligned up front

‍