Many web data RFPs fail before a vendor reads them. They ask for "competitor prices from all major retailers" and leave every vendor to guess the sources, countries, fields and refresh rate. The result is five quotes that cannot be compared.
A web data RFP checklist is the list of requirements a buyer defines before inviting vendors to quote: scope, sources, countries, data fields, refresh frequency, volume, delivery format, QA and acceptance criteria, SLA, change handling, compliance and usage rights, and pricing model. With these fixed, vendor quotes become comparable and can be scored.
This guide is written for procurement managers and data leads. It is vendor-neutral: use it to write your RFP, whoever you invite. It draws on the RFPs our team has received directly in 2026 from consulting firms, FMCG and beverage groups, retailers and travel companies, and on the gaps we see most often in them. If you are still deciding which kinds of provider to invite, start with our How to Choose a Web Scraping Partner in 2026: A Buyer's Guide. This article covers the next step: writing the document itself.
A software RFP buys a tool. A web data RFP buys an ongoing stream of records from websites you do not control. Three facts change how you write it:
In the RFPs we received in 2026, the authors were usually procurement teams working with a data owner in pricing, revenue management, strategy or data engineering. The best ones are co-written: procurement owns the process and terms, the data owner owns the requirement.
Use this web data RFP checklist as the backbone of your document. Each section answers a question every vendor would otherwise ask in a clarification round.
This is the part most RFPs skip. A one-page field dictionary removes most clarification questions and makes quotes comparable. Here is an example for a retail price-monitoring RFP; adapt the fields to your use case.
| Field | Definition to write in the RFP | Mandatory? | Acceptance rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_name / country | Website or app and ISO country code | Yes | Matches the agreed source list |
| product_id / url | Retailer's own ID and canonical product URL | Yes | Unique per source per crawl date |
| product_title / brand | Title and brand exactly as shown | Yes | Not blank; no HTML |
| list_price / sale_price | Regular and current selling price, with currency | Yes | Numeric; sale_price no higher than list_price |
| pack_size / unit_price | Pack size as shown, plus normalised per-unit price | Optional | Unit stated (g, ml, count) |
| availability | In stock / out of stock, per location | Yes | One of the agreed values |
| promo_text | Promotion or offer text shown on the page | Optional | Captured if visible |
| location_id | Store, postcode or delivery zone used for the crawl | If prices vary by location | Matches the agreed location list |
| crawl_timestamp | UTC date and time the record was collected | Yes | Within the agreed delivery window |
Three tips from real RFPs we have answered in 2026:
Quality claims such as "high accuracy" mean nothing in a contract. Put measurable definitions in the RFP and ask each vendor to state its own targets against them. You set the bar; the vendor tells you what it will commit to in writing.
| Metric | How to define it in the RFP | How to check it |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Share of agreed sources, locations and products delivered in each run | Compare delivered record counts with the agreed list |
| Completeness | Share of mandatory fields that are populated, per field | Null-rate report per field, per source |
| Accuracy | Share of sampled values that match the live page at crawl time | Monthly manual spot-check of a random sample, with screenshots |
| Timeliness | Delivery arrives by the agreed time in your time zone | File or API timestamps against the schedule |
| Source-break fix time | Time from a source breaking to data flowing again | Incident log with open and close timestamps |
| Incident response | Time to acknowledge and update on a reported issue | Support-ticket timestamps |
| Schema stability | Notice period before any field or format change | Change log and version numbers |
Define acceptance in three stages. Sample acceptance: the sample meets the field dictionary. Pilot acceptance: two to four weeks of production runs meet the metrics. Ongoing acceptance: monthly reporting against the SLA, with service credits or a remediation plan if targets are missed.
Vendors price web data in different ways, so a quote in one model is hard to compare with a quote in another. Describe the model you prefer in the RFP and ask each vendor to quote in it, plus its own model if different. The table below describes the common models only; it is not a price guide.
| Pricing model | How it is billed | Works best when | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Per record | A rate per row or item delivered | Volumes are predictable and fields are fixed | Duplicates and empty rows counted as records; how re-runs are billed |
| Per source / per site | A setup fee plus a monthly fee per website or app | Few sources, many records each | Fees for adding countries, locations or fields to a source |
| Per request / credits | Credits per page, request or API call | Self-serve APIs and spiky demand | Blocked or retried requests that use credits; overage rates |
| Subscription / managed service | A fixed monthly or annual fee for a defined scope | Ongoing feeds where budget certainty matters | Volume caps, scope-creep clauses, notice periods |
| Project / one-off | A fixed fee for one dataset or backfill | Market studies and due diligence | Cost to refresh later; who owns the scripts |
Whatever the model, ask vendors to list setup, monthly run, change-request and extra-source costs separately, so you compare total cost over the term, not headline rates. For how Actowiz structures its own plans, see our pricing page.
Agree the criteria and weights before you open any proposal, and publish them in the RFP. Public-sector guidance such as the UK government's Assessing Competitive Tenders makes the same point: tenders should be assessed against award criteria and weightings set out in advance. The weights below are a starting point; change them to match your priorities.
| Criterion | Suggested weight | What a strong answer shows | Score (1-5) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data quality and QA | 25% | Measured QA process; sample matches your spec | |
| Coverage and feasibility | 20% | Mandatory sources covered; honest feasibility flags | |
| SLA and support | 15% | Written targets, named contact, escalation path | |
| Delivery and integration | 10% | Your format and method; schema versioning | |
| Compliance and security | 10% | Public-data policy; clear usage rights | |
| Total cost over the term | 15% | Setup, run and change costs listed separately | |
| Change handling and scalability | 5% | Clear process and price for changes |
Score each criterion from 1 to 5, multiply by the weight and add up the results. Have at least two people from different teams score each proposal on their own, then agree the final scores together. Image: web-data-vendor-scorecard.png (alt: "Weighted scorecard for evaluating web data vendors").
For a multi-country, multi-source requirement, eight weeks from draft to signature is realistic.
| Week | Step | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Write the requirement with the data owner; build the field dictionary | Draft RFP and source list |
| 2 | Issue the RFP to a shortlist of 3-6 vendors | RFP sent, with NDA if needed |
| 3 | Clarification questions and answers shared with all vendors | Q&A log |
| 4 | Proposals due; request samples against your spec | Proposals and samples |
| 5 | Score proposals and samples on the scorecard | Shortlist of 2 |
| 6-7 | Paid or free pilot on 2-3 sources; check against acceptance criteria | Pilot QA report |
| 8 | Negotiate SLA, usage rights and commercials; sign | Contract and onboarding plan |
Your legal team will decide what is acceptable for your organisation, but the RFP should require vendors to answer these points:
For a deeper look, read our web scraping compliance guide. This article is general guidance, not legal advice.
At minimum: business objective, source list, countries and locations, a field dictionary, refresh frequency, volume, delivery format, QA and acceptance criteria, SLA, change handling, compliance and usage rights, and your preferred pricing model.
An RFI collects general information about vendors' capabilities to build a shortlist. An RFP gives a defined scope and asks for a priced, comparable proposal. For complex requirements, an RFI first can save time.
Three to six is usually enough. Fewer limits competition; more creates scoring work without better options. Use the RFI or a buyer's guide to shortlist.
No model is best everywhere. Per-record suits stable volumes, per-source suits few sources with many records, and subscription suits ongoing feeds that need budget certainty. Ask for quotes in one common model so you can compare.
Yes. Ask each shortlisted vendor for a sample from two or three of your sources in your field dictionary. It is the fastest way to test quality, coverage and how well the vendor understood your brief.
Timeliness of delivery, completeness of mandatory fields, accuracy on spot-checks, and fix time when a source breaks. Ask for written targets, monthly reporting and a remedy if targets are missed.
You can also reach us for all your mobile app scraping, data collection, web scraping, and instant data scraper service requirements!
Our web scraping expertise is relied on by 4,000+ global enterprises including Zomato, Tata Consumer, Subway, and Expedia — helping them turn web data into growth.
Watch how businesses like yours are using Actowiz data to drive growth.
From Zomato to Expedia — see why global leaders trust us with their data.
Backed by automation, data volume, and enterprise-grade scale — we help businesses from startups to Fortune 500s extract competitive insights across the USA, UK, UAE, and beyond.
We partner with agencies, system integrators, and technology platforms to deliver end-to-end solutions across the retail and digital shelf ecosystem.
Use this web data RFP checklist to define scope, sources, fields, SLA, QA and pricing models, then score vendors fairly.
Sensitive Skin Skincare Product Data API helps brands track cleansers, serums, moisturizers, and sunscreens with structured product data.
German marketplace data report 2026: online retail size, Amazon.de, Otto, Kaufland and Zalando price signals, PAngV rules and peak seasons.
Whether you're a startup or a Fortune 500 — we have the right plan for your data needs.